    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           EXAMINING BARRIERS TO ACCESS IN FEDERAL WATERS: A CLOSER
               LOOK AT THE MARINE SANCTUARY AND MONUMENT SYSTEM

    =======================================================================

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   before the

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                          Tuesday, September 19, 2023

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-62

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                       _______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    53-499 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2024

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                         BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                        DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Jared Huffman, CA
    Paul Gosar, AZ                       Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Garret Graves, LA                    Joe Neguse, CO
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Mike Levin, CA
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Katie Porter, CA
    Daniel Webster, FL                   Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
    Russ Fulcher, ID                     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
    Pete Stauber, MN                     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
    John R. Curtis, UT                   Kevin Mullin, CA
    Tom Tiffany, WI                      Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Jerry Carl, AL                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
    Matt Rosendale, MT                   Seth Magaziner, RI
    Lauren Boebert, CO                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
    Cliff Bentz, OR                      Ed Case, HI
    Jen Kiggans, VA                      Debbie Dingell, MI
    Jim Moylan, GU                       Susie Lee, NV
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX
    Mike Collins, GA
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL
    John Duarte, CA
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                        Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                          Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                     Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                     ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                            PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
                          MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
                    MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member

    Matt Rosendale, MT                   Ed Case, HI
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Mike Collins, GA                     Susie Lee, NV
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Tuesday, September 19, 2023......................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Arizona.................................................     2
        Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of New Mexico....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Panel I:

        Bavishi, Jainey, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
          and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
          Administration (NOAA), Washington, DC......................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    12

        Panel II:

        .............................................................
        Gibbons-Fly, Bill, Executive Director, American Tunaboat
          Association, Annapolis, Maryland...........................    28
            Prepared statement of....................................    30
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    42
        Kargi, Florence, Regional Affairs Manager, Coastal Villages
          Region Fund, Anchorage, Alaska.............................    46
            Prepared statement of....................................    48

        Aila, William Johnson, Native Hawaiian Fisherman, Waianae,
          Hawaii.....................................................    49
            Prepared statement of....................................    50
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    54
        Reid, Eric, Chair, New England Fishery Management Council,
          North Kingstown, Rhode Island..............................    58
            Prepared statement of....................................    59
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    61

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar

            American Sword & Tuna Harvesters, Letter to DOI, dated
              June 29, 2021..........................................    70
            City of New Bedford, Letter from Mayor Mitchell to
              Committee, dated October 2, 2023.......................    72
            Saving Seafood, Letter to the Committee, dated October 2,
              2023...................................................    75
            Saving Seafood, Excerpt from an Article in National
              Fisherman, September 23, 2021, ``Close Quarters: Ocean
              Zoning Pushes Fisheries to the Brink,'' by Roger Mann..    76
            Saving Seafood, Article titled, ``An Ecosystem is Not a
              Monument, and Other Challenges to Fishing in the 21st
              Century'' by Roger Mann, September 14, 2021............    77
            Saving Seafood--Northeast Canyons & Seamounts Marine
              National Monument Teleconference, March 12, 2021--
              Comments...............................................    85
            Seafreeze, Ltd., Letter to Committee, dated September 26,
              2023...................................................    90
            Seafreeze Ltd., e-mail to NOAA, dated September 15, 2015.    91
            Seafreeze Ltd., e-mail to NOAA, dated October 2, 2015....    92
            Seafreeze, Ltd., Meghan Lapp, Testimony from a May 17,
              2016 hearing by the Subcommittee on Water, Power and
              Oceans.................................................    95
            Seafreeze, Ltd., U.S. Senate Letter to CEQ, dated
              September 7, 2016......................................    97
            Seafreeze Ltd., Letter to DOI, dated July 6, 2017........    99
            Seafreeze Ltd., Letter to Dept. of Commerce, dated August
              15, 2017...............................................   100
            Seafreeze Ltd., Meghan Lapp, Statement for the Record....   101

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Radewagen

            Lemanu P.S. Mauga, Governor of American Samoa, Statement
              for the Record.........................................    16

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Stansbury

            Aleut Community of St. Paul, Letter to the Committee,
              dated September 22, 2023...............................   103

      OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING BARRIERS TO ACCESS IN FEDERAL WATERS:
      A CLOSER LOOK AT THE MARINE SANCTUARY AND MONUMENT SYSTEM

                                  ----------

                          Tuesday, September 19, 2023

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Gosar; Stansbury, and Case.
        Also present: Representative Radewagen.

        Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
    will now come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        Before we get started today, I just want to take a brief
    moment to recognize one of the members of our Full Committee
    that had planned to join us today, but due to very unfortunate
    circumstances could not make it. Representative Peltola from
    Alaska lost her husband in a tragic accident last week. And on
    behalf of all of the congressional community, myself and
    Ranking Member Stansbury, we would like to express our
    sincerest condolences to her and her family at this difficult
    time. We look forward to her joining us once again.
        If you would just take a minute to put your thoughts
    together in a moment of silence.
        [A moment of silence is observed.]
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you, everybody.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
    examining barriers to access the Federal waters, and to take a
    closer look at the marine sanctuary and monument system.
        I ask unanimous consent that all Members testifying today
    be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and give their
    testimony and participate in the hearing from the dais: the
    gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Carl; the gentleman from Louisiana,
    Mr. Graves; and the gentlewoman from American Samoa, Mrs.
    Radewagen.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral statements at the
    hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
    Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other
    Members' opening statements be made part of the permanent
    record if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule
    3(o).
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I now will recognize myself for my opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Dr. Gosar. I want to thank our witnesses for traveling all
    the way to Washington, DC to testify on such an important
    topic.
        When we think about the famous song, ``America the
    Beautiful,'' and the line, ``from sea to shining sea,'' this
    hearing really encapsulates this idea.
        Marine Protected Area designations and the impacts they
    have on Federal waters, from the shores of Maine to the
    commercial fishing off the Pacific territories, whether we
    realize it or not, have negative downstream consequences for
    millions of Americans, their families, and their pocketbooks.
        President Biden's weaponization of Marine Protected Areas,
    MPAs, designation is another example of his rampant abuse of
    executive authority to promote his radical climate agenda and
    social change initiatives without due consideration of the
    negative consequences for the economy, environment, and those
    of the working Americans.
        As many of you know, the U.S. Regional Fishery Management
    Councils are tasked with managing our fisheries in Federal
    waters since 1976. So, I find it very troubling that the Biden
    administration and their so-called climate experts in the White
    House seem intent on setting oceans and fisheries policy while
    bypassing the expertise of the fishery management councils who
    have managed the fisheries in their respective regions for
    decades.
        The best science available suggests that MPA designations
    are not an effective strategy for fishery management, and that
    most Federal waters are already protected through fishery
    management policies or the regulation of certain activities
    that harm the environment. I believe that we can find better
    solutions to strengthen fisheries management, and I encourage
    that conversation today.
        That being said, I cannot approve of President Biden's
    harmful, reckless MPA designations that disregard the best
    science in order to further his political agenda.
        President Biden and his Administration have also repeatedly
    failed to consider the economic effects of their misguided
    climate policies. MPA designations that prohibit commercial
    fishing can decimate entire communities that rely on fishing
    and related activities, such as seafood processing to remain
    economically viable. And that is not to mention mining, oil,
    and gas production, renewable energy development, and other
    resource development opportunities that are prohibited under
    many MPAs.
        At the moment, the territories of the Pacific remote
    islands are preparing for the proposed designation of the
    Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary, which would
    significantly expand the Pacific Rim Islands Marine National
    Monument established by President Obama in 2014. The proposed
    marine sanctuary would potentially further prohibit commercial
    tuna fishing in the Federal waters surrounding the Pacific
    remote islands, effectively decimating the entire tuna industry
    that the communities in the region depend on for their economic
    and food security.
        President Biden often preaches about his Administration's
    progress on environmental justice. However, it seems the most
    disadvantaged communities are almost always the ones hit
    hardest by these economically restrictive eco-policies. The
    Indigenous populations of American Samoa rely on commercial
    fishing for their livelihoods and to provide for their
    families. Yet, President Biden would massively reduce their
    fishing opportunities with this proposed marine sanctuary. We
    will hear testimony today how these reckless MPA designations
    damage critical industries for communities across the United
    States and its territories.
        Meanwhile, President Biden's MPA designation only serves to
    help China and other foreign adversaries who encroach on U.S.
    waters and fisheries. Chinese vessels will take even more fish
    that should be caught by U.S. vessels in MPAs, and they will do
    so with total disregard for the environment, international
    maritime law, and proper fishing management.
        A recent report from NOAA identified China as continuing to
    participate in Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated fishing
    activities, as well as forced labor in their seafood sector.
    Let's think about this for a minute. Do you really want all of
    our seafood to be sourced and packaged in China?
        Unfortunately, the Committee has repeatedly heard from the
    commercial fishing industry that this Administration has little
    to no interest in hearing their concerns regarding the effects
    of MPA designations.
        Additionally, the Administration has made minimal efforts
    to conduct thorough public processes for these communities
    affected by several of their proposed marine sanctuaries and
    monuments.
        In light of this, I implore President Biden and his
    Administration to listen closely and learn from the collective
    experience and knowledge of the witnesses before us. If the
    Administration abandons their uninformed, heavy-handed approach
    to water and fisheries management, I am confident they can
    achieve the proper balance between the effective fisheries
    management and supporting a robust, sustainable commercial
    fishing industry.
        Let's entrust water and fisheries management to those who
    know it best, rather than to the climate-obsessed,
    inexperienced bureaucrats in DC. The U.S. regional fishery
    management councils, the commercial fishing industry, and the
    communities directly affected by these poorly-designed MPAs
    should be involved in deciding the direction of the Federal
    oceans and fisheries policies.
        I now recognize Ranking Member Stansbury for her opening
    statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Ms. Stansbury. Thank you very much to the Chair, and good
    morning to everyone. I want to say thank you to our
    Administration witness who is here, and also to our other
    Members who are joining us this morning.
        As we all know, protecting our oceans and our marine areas
    is more important than ever. Our oceans are critical to
    protecting biodiversity and addressing the climate crisis. Our
    oceans contain a quarter of a million known species and at
    least two times that estimate to be discovered. They are
    critical for mitigating climate change, and, in fact, the ocean
    has absorbed 90 percent of the heat generated by rising
    emissions. And we have been seeing the effects of rising ocean
    temperatures, sea level rise, and other impacts and increases
    in natural disasters.
        Our oceans are also critical to feeding the world. Nearly
    half of the world's population depends on fish for protein, and
    almost 60 million people worldwide work in the fisheries and
    aquaculture industries. The time has long since passed to ask
    if we should be protecting our oceans. Instead, we should be
    asking how do we use every tool possible to ensure that we are
    protecting them.
        And that is one of the reasons why we have Marine Protected
    Areas. These areas, which include marine national monuments and
    national marine sanctuaries, are one of the most effective
    tools in defending and improving the resilience of our oceans,
    coral reefs, and fisheries.
        Protected areas protect marine life and critical habitats.
    They support diverse ecosystems. They help build resilience
    against the impacts of climate change, and will help mitigate
    the long-term impacts of climate change.
        As environmental stewards, we have a responsibility to
    sustainably manage our marine areas for current and future
    generations. In the past, both Democrats and Republicans have
    acted on this responsibility. In fact, it was President George
    W. Bush who used the Antiquities Act to create some of the
    world's most significant marine reserves, including the largest
    fully-protected conservation area in the United States and one
    of the largest marine conservation areas in the world. He
    claimed public credit for these accomplishments, as he should,
    because of their importance. These monuments safeguard hundreds
    of thousands of miles of marine ecosystems, as well as
    significant cultural resources for Indigenous peoples across
    the Pacific.
        The Biden administration is now proposing to expand
    protections for these existing monuments, including the Pacific
    Remote Islands Marine National Monument, to further protect the
    valuable natural and cultural resources that these areas
    encompass. These proposals are supported by a broad coalition
    of individuals in the Pacific remote island areas, including
    residents of the islands, scientists, and cultural
    practitioners. But as we will hear today, there are folks who
    are working to undermine and challenge the ability to establish
    and maintain these protected areas and the impacts that they
    may bring with that.
        I would like to say that I recognize and acknowledge the
    importance of our fisheries councils to protect the livelihoods
    of those who are in the fishing industry. I will always fight
    for the brave men and women who are working every day to put
    meals on our table, whether that is through fishing, farming,
    or ranching.
        And that is why I was encouraged to see that the Biden
    administration's proposed designation would draw on the
    information of our Fisheries Council, and has determined that
    no impact on U.S.-flagged fishing fleets or their practices or
    catch on tuna cannery operations in Samoa will be impacted by
    this designation. In fact, what we do know is that spillover of
    healthier fish populations increase with the designation of
    marine national monuments, as we have seen in a designated
    monument near Hawaii, where an astounding 54 percent spillover
    has occurred since the 2016 expansion.
        You may hear today about fishery management councils,
    including the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
    Council known as WESPAC, opposing increased protection. I
    recognize the importance of this and other councils and their
    ability to manage our fisheries and strike a balance between
    independence and accountability, but also following the science
    and the needs of our communities so that we can continue to
    protect biodiversity, combat climate change, and feed the
    world.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady from New Mexico. I will
    now introduce our witness for the first panel, Ms. Jainey
    Bavishi, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
    Atmosphere of NOAA.
        Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you
    must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire
    statement will appear in the hearing record.
        To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on
    the microphone.
        We use timing lights here. When you first start, it will
    turn green. When it turns to yellow, start summarizing. And
    when it is red, please end.
        I now recognize Ms. Bavishi for her 5 minutes. Thank you.

     STATEMENT OF JAINEY BAVISHI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
      FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
                         ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)

        Ms. Bavishi. Good morning, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member
    Stansbury, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jainey
    Bavishi, and I am the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
    Oceans and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
    on NOAA's stewardship of national marine sanctuaries and marine
    national monuments. These two types of Marine Protected Areas
    encompass many of our national treasures in the ocean and Great
    Lakes. They exemplify the ecological richness that underpins
    the prosperity of not just our nation, but also the Indigenous
    nations that preceded ours and endure to this day. They embody
    the maritime heritage that links us to the legacy of our
    national forebears, as well as Indigenous cultures whose roots
    trace to pre-history. And if we are effective stewards, they
    hold the promise of ecosystem services and nature-based
    solutions that will help our nation navigate the uncertainties
    of a future under climate change.
        At NOAA, we are dedicated to conserving these special
    places, understanding them, and holding them in trust for
    current and future generations of Americans. NOAA designates
    sanctuaries under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the
    President designates marine national monuments under the
    Antiquities Act. These Acts provide for different approaches to
    place-based protections of U.S. waters.
        Sanctuaries provide for comprehensive management of marine
    resources, while allowing for multiple uses that are compatible
    with resource protection. Comprehensive management includes
    building public awareness, enhancing community connections,
    restoring damaged resources, and facilitating sustainable use
    of resources. NOAA establishes national marine sanctuaries
    under a well-defined public process that is, as prescribed by
    statute, highly participatory. At multiple stages of this
    process, NOAA considers input from the public, tribes,
    stakeholders, and partners at various levels of government.
        Designation and management of marine national monuments are
    under a different legal framework. Under the Antiquities Act,
    the President has final authority to establish national
    monuments. These Presidential Proclamations that established
    the five marine national monuments also serve as the basis for
    their management and regulation. NOAA shares responsibilities
    for their management with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of
    the Department of the Interior, with input from other Federal
    agencies and relevant state and territorial governments.
        National marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments
    allow different types of access and uses consistent with the
    purposes of their designation and the types of resource
    protections needed to conserve their values and unique
    characteristics. Enhancing access and sustainable use of
    important marine areas is generally a high priority for NOAA's
    management of these places, especially with respect to
    encouraging recreational use and continuance of cultural
    practices. National marine sanctuaries are highly valued for
    boating, diving, fishing, wildlife viewing, and more.
        Of note, every national marine sanctuary provides
    opportunities for recreational fishing, and commercial fishing
    is also allowed in most areas of the National Marine Sanctuary
    System.
        For Federal waters of sanctuaries, NOAA provides the
    appropriate regional fishery management council with the first
    opportunity to draft any fishing regulations that are needed to
    meet the proposed sanctuary's goals and objectives.
        In addition, when considering changes to regulations and
    programs of existing sanctuaries, NOAA leans on advice from
    sanctuary advisory councils, which are composed of a diverse
    cross-section of community members, state and local
    governments, and stakeholders such as resource users. Far from
    being a barrier to access, NOAA's management of national marine
    sanctuaries enhances access to sanctuary resources by providing
    physical infrastructure, informational products and services,
    and public outreach to local communities and the visiting
    public. I have included examples of such enhancements in my
    statement for the hearing record.
        For marine national monuments, NOAA manages these areas at
    the President's behest. If a proclamation establishing a marine
    national monument calls for fishing restrictions, NOAA works
    with the regional fishery management council to promulgate
    regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Nearly all marine
    monument proclamations call for continued access to
    recreational fishing. For these monuments, NOAA works with the
    regional fishery management councils to facilitate fishing
    access and support fishery management plans recommended by the
    councils and consistent with the proclamations.
        To summarize, while the national marine sanctuaries and
    marine national monuments are established and managed
    differently, what they share is that NOAA's stewardship of
    these places ensures that future generations of Americans will
    be able to access their benefits. When making decisions on
    management actions within our discretion, NOAA carefully
    considers potential impacts on communities and resource users,
    and whenever possible we follow established processes to gather
    and consider views from other governmental entities,
    stakeholders, and the public.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss national
    marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments. I look
    forward to your questions.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bavishi follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Jainey K. Bavishi, Assistant Secretary of
     Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                  Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
    Introduction

        Good morning, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury and Members
    of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
    today. My name is Jainey Bavishi, and I am the Assistant Secretary of
    Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Deputy Administrator at the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        NOAA is dedicated to the science-based stewardship of natural and
    cultural marine resources, including those that are in marine protected
    areas under our care. National marine sanctuaries and marine national
    monuments represent special areas of national significance, as well as
    cultural, historical, and scientific interest. In general, NOAA focuses
    its management of these places on actions that are necessary to
    conserve and protect their unique characteristics, and to meet the
    intents of their respective designations. In making these management
    decisions, NOAA carefully considers their impacts on surrounding
    communities and resource users, and follows established processes to
    gather and consider views from stakeholders and the public.
        The purpose of my testimony is to provide an overview of NOAA's
    stewardship of the National Marine Sanctuary System designated under
    the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and marine national monuments
    designated under the Antiquities Act. NOAA manages these two types of
    marine protected areas as part of a larger ocean conservation and
    management framework that also includes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal
    Protection Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Coastal Zone
    Management Act.
        I will also cover NOAA's processes for designating new national
    marine sanctuaries and establishing regulations in marine national
    monuments, and how both sanctuaries and monuments enhance community
    connections, economic benefits, and access.
    The National Marine Sanctuary System

        The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) authorizes the Secretary
    of Commerce to conserve areas of the marine environment that are of
    special national significance, and to manage these areas as the
    National Marine Sanctuary System. NMSA provides for comprehensive
    management of marine ecosystems while allowing for multiple uses that
    are compatible with the statute's primary goal of protecting resources.
        NOAA has managed national marine sanctuaries in America's ocean and
    Great Lakes for nearly 50 years. Components of the National Marine
    Sanctuary System range in size from the site of a single shipwreck to a
    vast expanse of ocean surrounding remote coral reefs and atolls. From
    Washington State to the Florida Keys, and from the Northeast and Great
    Lakes to American Samoa, NOAA seeks to preserve scenic beauty,
    biodiversity, historical and cultural connections, and economic
    productivity of these underwater national treasures.
        NOAA manages the Nation's 15 national marine sanctuaries to: (1)
    improve the conservation, understanding, and management of marine
    resources; (2) enhance public awareness and sustainable use of the
    marine environment; and (3) maintain ecological and cultural resources,
    and the services that they provide, for future generations. Every
    American has a stake in these national treasures, from those who make
    their living from the use of sanctuary resources, to those who enjoy
    recreating in these special places, and to community groups who
    advocate for protection of these resources.
        Of the five marine national monuments co-managed by NOAA, two are
    managed as part of the National Marine Sanctuary System:
    Papahanaumokuakea and Rose Atoll. As described below, marine national
    monuments are established by Presidential proclamation under a separate
    legal authority and are managed differently than national marine
    sanctuaries.
    Process to Designate National Marine Sanctuaries

        To consider new sanctuaries to designate under the NMSA, NOAA
    established a sanctuary nomination process in 2014 that enables
    interested individuals or groups to identify and recommend special
    areas of the ocean or Great Lakes environment for designation as a
    national marine sanctuary. Nomination documents must identify the
    unique attributes of special places, identify the specific goal or
    intent for designation, and demonstrate broad support from a variety of
    stakeholders and interested parties. NOAA evaluates the merit of a
    nomination based on national significance criteria and management
    considerations. NOAA's acceptance of a nomination into its inventory
    signifies only that the nomination has sufficiently met these criteria,
    but does not indicate NOAA's intent to initiate a sanctuary designation
    process.
        Sanctuary designation is a separate process that is, by law, public
    and highly participatory. It has multiple steps that often take several
    years to complete. With each designation, we are committed to engaging
    stakeholders through a robust and transparent public process. The
    process begins with public scoping, which is when NOAA announces its
    intent to designate a new national marine sanctuary and asks the public
    for input on potential boundaries, resources that could be protected,
    issues NOAA should consider, and any information that should be
    included in the resource analysis.
        NOAA then develops the sanctuary proposal and draft designation
    documents, including a draft management plan, draft environmental
    impact statement that analyzes a range of alternatives, and a proposed
    rule that describes proposed regulations and boundaries. In some cases,
    NOAA may also form an advisory council during the designation process
    to help inform the development of the proposal and further facilitate
    stakeholder engagement. NOAA then presents the proposal for review and
    comment by the public, agency partners, and other stakeholders.
        Finally, NOAA considers all input on the proposal and prepares the
    final management plan, final environmental impact statement, and final
    rule. Upon publication of the final rule, the designation does not take
    effect until after 45 days of Congressional session, as defined by the
    NMSA. During this review period, the governor of any affected state can
    stop any part of the designation from taking effect in the waters of
    that state. Congress also has the opportunity to review these documents
    during this period.
        Separate from this administrative process for sanctuary
    designation, Congress has also passed legislation to enact statutory
    designations of three national marine sanctuaries that are currently in
    the System.
    Marine National Monuments Co-Managed by NOAA

        Marine national monuments are established differently than national
    marine sanctuaries. The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides the President
    with authority to establish national monuments on lands owned or
    controlled by the U.S. Government, including submerged lands and the
    waters associated with them. Eighteen presidents of both parties have
    used the Act's authority more than 100 times to protect lands of
    significant importance.\1\ Examples of national treasures that have
    been designated as national monuments include the Grand Canyon, the C&O
    Canal, and the Statue of Liberty. Management responsibilities for the
    five existing marine national monuments are shared across multiple
    government agencies, including NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (USFWS) of the Department of the Interior, often in close
    coordination with other Federal, state and territorial partners.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Congressional Research Service. National Monuments and the
    Antiquities Act (May 3, 2023), by Carol Hardy Vincent. https://
    sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41330.pdf; Accessed: September 15, 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The five marine national monuments are Papahanaumokuakea, Rose
    Atoll, Pacific Remote Islands, and Marianas Trench in the Pacific and
    Northeast Canyons and Seamounts in the Atlantic. As directed by the
    Presidential proclamations that established them, marine national
    monuments can provide broad ecological and national heritage
    protection.
        For example, as described in the Presidential Proclamation 9478 of
    August 26, 2016, Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM)
    provides protection to 7,000 marine species, one quarter of which are
    found only in the Hawaiian Archipelago. PMNM also has great cultural
    significance to Native Hawaiians and offers a connection to early
    Polynesian culture. Additionally, PMNM is the first site ever
    designated as a ``cultural seascape'' and is the only World Heritage
    Site that is both a natural and cultural site in the United States
    designated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
    Organization.
    Process for Establishing and Managing Marine National Monuments

        Typically, ideas for areas to be established as national monuments
    originate in nearby local communities and are proposed to the
    Administration by local and state elected officials, congressional
    delegations, non-governmental organizations, scientists, or citizen
    groups. Final authority to designate national monuments lies with the
    President. NOAA's role includes providing information on the resources,
    assessing those resources as objects of scientific interest, and
    assisting with public engagement. While not required by statute, NOAA
    and partner agencies have often conducted extensive public engagement
    prior to the establishment or expansion of marine monuments. For
    example, in 2014 when the Administration was considering how to expand
    protections around the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument,
    the Departments of Commerce and the Interior held a public meeting in
    the region and accepted written public comments from all interested
    parties.
        The Presidential proclamations that have established the marine
    national monuments have called for the development of management plans
    and, if necessary, regulations. Management plans establish the long-
    term vision and framework to guide the stewardship of the national
    monument's unique ecosystem, marine life and natural, cultural and
    historical resources. The plans, analogous to national marine sanctuary
    management plans, typically encompass management, research,
    conservation, education, and outreach initiatives across a 10-15 year
    time frame. Managing agencies, primarily NOAA and USFWS, coordinate
    closely to develop and implement management plans with extensive
    interagency and intergovernmental input from other entities including
    the Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard, and if applicable, Tribal
    nations and state and territorial governments.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
    is the primary law that governs marine fisheries management in U.S.
    Federal waters and enables enforcement of any fishing regulations in
    marine national monuments. If a Presidential proclamation calls for
    regulation of fishing in a marine national monument, the Secretary of
    Commerce, acting through NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
    may promulgate fishing regulations under the MSA, utilizing advice and
    recommendations received from the appropriate regional fishery
    management council, as provided by the MSA. For example, nearly all the
    proclamations establishing marine national monuments call for continued
    access to recreational fishing. For these monuments, NOAA, in close
    coordination with the regional fishery management councils, facilitates
    access for any noncommercial fisheries and supports fishery management
    plans recommended by the councils in their advisory capacity.
        The fishery management councils are critical advisors to NOAA. We
    acknowledge and appreciate their important role and expertise in our
    fisheries management processes, in protecting biodiversity, and in
    ending overfishing, with or without a pre-existing marine national
    monument designation. A good example of this is the North Pacific
    Fishery Management Council's management plan for the Arctic, which was
    approved by the Secretary of Commerce on August 17, 2009 and
    implemented on December 3, 2009. This plan prohibits all commercial
    harvests of fish in Federal waters north of the Bering Strait until
    sufficient information is available to support the sustainable
    management of a commercial fishery.
    Enhancing Access to NOAA-managed Marine Protected Areas

        National marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments allow
    different types of access and use, consistent with the purposes of
    their designation and the types of resource protections that conserve
    their values and unique characteristics. That said, enhancing access
    and sustainable use of important marine areas is generally a high
    priority for NOAA's management of these places.
        A key aspect of this objective is encouraging recreational use.
    National marine sanctuaries are highly valued for a variety of
    recreational activities, including boating, diving, fishing, wildlife
    viewing, and more. For example, all national marine sanctuaries and
    most marine national monuments provide opportunities for recreational
    fishing within their boundaries. Beyond being one of the most popular
    sports in America and a favorite pastime for millions of Americans,
    sustainable recreational fishing can foster a lifelong appreciation for
    America's great outdoors and provide a source of economic vitality to
    coastal communities.
        Like recreational fishing, commercial fishing is allowed in most of
    the National Marine Sanctuary System. NOAA regulates commercial fishing
    in national marine sanctuaries in coordination with state fishery
    management agencies and utilizing advice and recommendations from the
    regional fishery management councils, pursuant to authorities under the
    MSA and relevant state laws. For Federal waters of national marine
    sanctuaries, the NMSA requires NOAA to provide the appropriate regional
    fishery management council the opportunity, in its advisory capacity,
    to draft fishing restrictions for NOAA's consideration if general
    fishery management approaches need to be supplemented to meet the goals
    and objectives of a national marine sanctuary.

        Far from being a barrier to access, NOAA's management of national
    marine sanctuaries enhances access to sanctuary resources by providing
    physical infrastructure, informational products and services, and
    public outreach to local communities and the visiting public. The
    following are a few examples:

         Infrastructure to support access. In some places in the
                National Marine Sanctuary System that experience heavy
                visitation, NOAA maintains critical infrastructure to
                facilitate easy access, enhance visitor experience, and
                protect sensitive resources. Such infrastructure includes
                mooring buoys, signage, and navigation markers. For
                example, in Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary located
                in Lake Huron, 42 buoys are installed seasonally for public
                use. In Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA
                maintains more than 500 mooring buoys available for year-
                round use on a first-come basis.

         Information products and services for on-water visitors.
                NOAA enhances user experience and facilitates understanding
                of resource protections by providing innovative smartphone
                apps, free of charge, to visitors of select sites. The most
                recent example is the Marine Sanctuary Explorer, which
                provides visitors to Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
                with information to plan their visits and experience the
                sanctuary. This smartphone app features location-tagged
                points of interest, push notifications for zones of special
                regulation, and easy-to-read guidelines. Another example is
                the Whale Alert app, a tool that Stellwagen Bank National
                Marine Sanctuary was a leader in developing. The app
                identifies whale ``safety zones'' and is a hub for citizen
                scientists to report whale sightings. This information not
                only facilitates whale watching by visitors, but also helps
                transiting mariners avoid impacts to whales and assists
                whale biologists and resource managers better understand
                whale feeding and migration patterns.

         Visitor centers and interpretive resources. NOAA maintains
                nine visitor centers across the country, in collaboration
                with partner organizations and local volunteers, to
                interpret and raise awareness of sanctuary resources among
                visitors and local residents who do not always have the
                means to access sanctuary waters. NOAA also partners with
                local organizations to provide and maintain interpretive
                tools such as signs, exhibits, and interactive kiosks.

         Business Recognition Program/Blue Star. Billions of
                dollars in annual sales and thousands of jobs in sanctuary
                gateway communities depend directly on healthy and thriving
                sanctuary resources. NOAA's Business Recognition Program
                for sanctuaries is a voluntary initiative that recognizes
                and promotes recreational operators that promote
                stewardship, awareness, and responsible enjoyment of our
                national marine sanctuaries among their clients.
                Participating recreational operators serve as voluntary
                ``Ambassadors'' that connect visitors to sanctuaries
                through recreation activities.

         Educational opportunities. NOAA works with public school
                systems and minority-serving groups to connect students
                from underserved areas with environmental experiences,
                field trips, and outdoor recreation opportunities in
                national marine sanctuaries. One such program is NOAA's
                Ocean Guardian School Program, which works with Title I and
                Free and Reduced-Price Lunch schools, among others in
                marginalized communities.

    Connections to Communities

        For each national marine sanctuary, NOAA establishes local offices
    of staff who live and raise their families in the neighboring
    communities of these special places. It is in these communities that
    management plans are developed, implemented, reviewed, and revised for
    each sanctuary, taking into account the specific needs and
    circumstances of that area. These management plans address resource
    protection, science, education, and outreach priorities.
        The NMSA also authorizes NOAA to establish advisory councils for
    sanctuaries. These community-based advisory groups provide advice and
    recommendations to sanctuary superintendents on management, research,
    and use of sanctuary resources. Council members come from a broad
    cross-section of the local communities and represent diverse interests
    such as conservation, education, research, recreation, tourism, marine
    transportation, maritime industry, agriculture, and maritime heritage.
    They also include representatives from local, regional, state, Tribal,
    territorial and Federal agencies.
        In places where NOAA must restrict access to specific sanctuary
    areas to conserve and protect resources, NOAA relies heavily on
    sanctuary advisory councils to supplement input from public notice and
    comment periods, community meetings, and other constituent engagement
    fora. For example, the sanctuary advisory council for Florida Keys
    National Marine Sanctuary has been an integral part of NOAA's process
    for the sanctuary's management plan review, currently in progress. The
    Sanctuary Advisory Council and its working groups, representing a broad
    range of community and stakeholder interests, have developed extensive
    recommendations for changing the sanctuary's approach to access in
    certain areas. These recommendations accounted for the condition of
    resources, changes to the environment and ecological threats, and use
    patterns in these areas.
        NOAA collected public comments on the draft environmental impact
    statement (August 2019) and proposed rule (July 2022), and is working
    closely with its co-managers, the USFWS, and Florida state agencies
    toward a final rule. This effort, called the Blueprint for Restoration,
    is a critical step in bolstering the resilience of the sanctuary's
    ecosystems against the grave existential threats that they face,
    including this summer's marine heatwave that is impacting and
    potentially killing corals at an unprecedented scale.
        Marine national monuments are not required to have an advisory
    council but often create forums, such as interagency committees, that
    also include community participation. For example, the Marianas Trench
    Monument Advisory Committee includes the Department of Defense, U.S.
    Coast Guard, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
    government, and provides advice and recommendations to NOAA and USFWS
    on management of the Monument. The Pacific Remote Islands Marine
    National Monument (PRIMNM) managers convened a PRIMNM Community Group
    to solicit input in drafting the Monument management plan to ensure
    diverse perspectives were included on how best to manage this large
    part of the Pacific Ocean and its special features. In PMNM, a Reserve
    Advisory Council, established under the authority of the NMSA as part
    of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve that
    predated the marine national monument designation, continues to provide
    an important public forum for stakeholder consultation and deliberation
    on resource management decisions in the Reserve that may affect the
    Monument.
    Benefits to Local and Regional Economies

        History has shown us that NOAA's conservation actions under the
    National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the
    Antiquities Act have produced positive economic, social, and cultural
    benefits. For example, NOAA economists have estimated that activities
    such as fishing, research, and recreation activities generate about $8
    billion annually in local coastal and ocean dependent economies across
    all the national marine sanctuaries. From restaurants, sporting goods
    stores, and hotels to aquariums and kayak outfitters, the success of
    many businesses and thousands of jobs depend directly on healthy,
    vibrant sanctuaries.

         In the 2007-2008 tourist season, more than 400,000
                visitors and residents of the Florida Keys engaged in more
                than two million person-days of recreational sports
                fishing. These recreational fishers spent $274 million in
                Monroe County/Florida Keys, approximately $107 million of
                which was directly spent on fishing items.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/socioeconomic/floridakeys/
    recreation/linking08.html

         Visitors to NOAA's Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
                and the immediate area boosted the region's economy with
                $102 million in spending, supporting nearly 1,200 jobs and
                generating $46 million in local income for business owners
                and employees in 2014, according to a NOAA analysis using
                the most recent figures available.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/socioeconomic/
    olympiccoast/recreation.html

         According to a 2005 Michigan Sea Grant study, tourism and
                recreation expenditures in the tri-county area adjacent to
                Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Alpena, Michigan
                had an economic impact of $92 million in sales, $36 million
                in personal income to residents, $51 million in value
                added, and 1,700 jobs.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Ehler, Rod and Jordan Parrillo. Northeast Michigan Integrated
    Assessment Final Report: Socioeconomic Assessment. NOAA and Michigan
    Sea Grant. 2009.

        The community of Alpena, Michigan--home of Thunder Bay National
    Marine Sanctuary--was initially divided in opinion on the proposed
    sanctuary designation, but today celebrates the opportunities the
    Sanctuary brings to the local area. The community of Alpena has even
    adopted ``Sanctuary of the Great Lakes'' as a unified branding theme. A
    previous mayor of the city called the sanctuary ``an anchor for
    downtown Alpena.'' The visitor center, educational programming, and
    volunteer opportunities engage the public and draw visitors from all
    over the region and country. In 2017 the visitor center drew 92,943
    visitors to a city with a population of 10,000.
        While we do not currently have economic valuations of monuments
    based on resource uses, NOAA commissioned a peer-reviewed study in 2011
    to estimate the non-use economic valuation of sanctuary and monument
    resources that are fully protected and restored.\5\ This study found
    that the total economic value the American people hold for the coral
    reefs in the Hawaiian Islands is $33.57 billion. Marine national
    monuments can fully protect and conserve these resources for the
    American people and hold them in trust for future generations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Richard C. Bishop, David J. Chapman, Barbara J. Kanninen, et
    al. 2011. Total Economic Value for Protecting and Restoring Hawaiian
    Coral Reef Ecosystems: Final Report. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Office of
    National Marine Sanctuaries, Office of Response and Restoration, and
    Coral Reef Conservation Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 16. 406
    pp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion

        NOAA, through its stewardship of the National Marine Sanctuary
    System and co-management of the five marine national monuments, is
    committed to building a stronger, more resilient future for America's
    coastal and Great Lakes communities, ecosystems, and economies. With
    the funding requested in the President's Fiscal Year 2024 Budget, NOAA
    will invest in increasing conservation and protection in an expanded
    sanctuary system, which is an integral part of NOAA's implementation of
    the America the Beautiful initiative. Sanctuaries and monuments protect
    nationally significant natural, historical, and cultural resources for
    the benefit of the public.
        While the national marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments
    are established and managed differently, what they have in common is
    that our stewardship of these places ensures that future generations of
    Americans will continue to be able to access their benefits and
    ecosystem services for the long term. Both types of marine protected
    areas support and enhance a diverse suite of uses, including
    recreational and commercial uses, that are consistent with management
    and conservation goals.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss national marine
    sanctuaries and marine national monuments.

                                     ______

        Questions Submitted for the Record to Jainey Bavishi, Assistant
             Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA

    Ms. Bavishi did not submit responses to the Committee by the
    appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

                  Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
        Question 1. I understand that many Alaskan communities are
    concerned that NOAA may soon propose Alagum Kanuux for a marine
    sanctuary designation.

        1a) Does NOAA intend to propose Alagum Kanuux for a marine
    sanctuary designation? If so, when will that process begin and what
    will it look like?

        1b) If not, what are the circumstances in which NOAA would move
    forward with the Alagum Kanuux designation?

        1c) Outside of the sanctuary nomination process, is the
    Administration considering any actions to designate the waters around
    St. Paul, or other waters off Alaska, as a National Marine Monument
    under the Antiquities Act?

        Question 2. Over the last two years, the nation's eight regional
    fishery management councils developed the first synthesis of
    conservation areas in federal waters off the United States, identifying
    hundreds of conservation areas created under fisheries management
    authority covering more than 72% of federal waters.

        2a) Under the 30x30 Initiative, are NOAA and other agencies
    involved in the American Conservation and Stewardship Atlas development
    going to incorporate the conservation areas identified in the Councils'
    report?

        2b) How else is NOAA going to view and use the Councils' report to
    address the objectives set out in 30x30?

        Question 3. In a letter to Administrator Spinrad from March 2023, a
    broad group of Bering Sea stakeholders asserted that NOAA was mistaken
    in their assessment that the Alagum Kanuux nomination enjoys ``broad
    community-based support'', which the Office of National Marine
    Sanctuaries identifies as a necessary criterion before a nomination can
    be accepted and added to the inventory. Stakeholder input on this
    nomination reveals that the proposal actually had very limited support
    from other fishery dependent communities, Tribes in the region,
    stakeholders that rely on areas of the Bering Sea covered by the
    originally proposed sanctuary boundaries, and from others in the region
    who would be directly impacted.

        3a) How did NOAA assess the interests and viewpoints of these
    critical stakeholders in the Alagum Kanuux sanctuary proposal?

        3b) Was the lack of affirmative support for the sanctuary proposal
    weighed carefully when attempting to quantify whether the ``broad
    community-based support'' threshold had been met?

        3c) Did NOAA give disproportionate weight to form letters as part
    of the nomination packet from stakeholders outside of the region?

        Question 4. The Magnuson-Stevens Act lays out ten statutory
    national standards that fishery management plans and plan amendments
    must comply with, including requirements that fisheries are not
    overfished, that bycatch is minimized to the extent practicable, that
    fishers and fishing communities are treated fairly and equitably, and
    to promote the safety of human life at sea. The National Marine
    Sanctuaries Act contains no substantive statutory requirements for
    managing fisheries inside a sanctuary.

        4a) Does NOAA believe that a Sanctuary's ``goals and objectives''
    can be a viable basis for managing commercial fisheries, even if they
    conflict with the national standards in the Magnuson-Stevens Act?

        4b) Can NOAA provide assurances that current or future federal
    administrations and current or future leaders of a sanctuary's sponsors
    will not use a sanctuary's ``goals and objectives'' and/or sanctuary
    management regulations to allow commercial fishing unrestricted by the
    statutory resource protections in the Magnuson-Stevens Act?

        4c) Can a sanctuary's management regulations be used to create
    specific economic benefits from a commercial fishery inside a
    sanctuary? For example, could sanctuary regulations require that all
    fish harvested inside a sanctuary be delivered for processing at a
    specific port?

        4d) Is NOAA concerned that fishery participants and other
    stakeholders who do not get their way at a regional fishery management
    council will become sanctuary sponsors in an effort to achieve from
    NOAA's Office of Marine Sanctuaries what they could not achieve at
    their regional council?

        4e) In Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Raimondo, Chief
    Justice Roberts expressed skepticism about using the Antiquities Act to
    create new regulatory regimes over large areas of the ocean. How has
    Chief Justice Roberts' statement affected NOAA's decision-making when
    choosing a statutory basis for removing large areas of the ocean out
    from under the Magnuson-Stevens Act?

        Question 5. In 2022, NOAA placed in inventory a proposed sanctuary,
    Alagum Kanuux. As originally proposed, this sanctuary would cover more
    than 52,000 square miles in the Bering Sea. The current proposal for
    Alagum Kanuux lacks any boundaries and the designation process, if
    undertaken, may lead to an even larger sanctuary.

        5a) Has NOAA created up to five years of regulatory uncertainty for
    Bering Sea fishery participants by adding Alagum Kanuux to inventory?
    If not, please explain why.

        5b) What percentage of U.S. fisheries landings occur in the Bering
    Sea?

        5c) How many jobs does the Bering Sea fishing industry support?

        Question 6. Earlier this year, NOAA Fisheries released its National
    Seafood Strategy which among other things, identifies as its Number One
    objective to: Maximize fishing opportunities and sustainable seafood
    production while ensuring the sustainability of fisheries through
    effective and efficient management.

        6a) How does closing all U.S. waters around the U.S. Pacific Remote
    Island Area (PRIA), which historically have been important to the U.S.
    purse seine fleet and the Hawaii longline fleet, and displaces these
    fleets to fish on the high seas among foreign subsidized vessels,
    support NOAA's National Seafood Strategy?

        6b) How does closing U.S. waters to commercial fishing in the
    Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, which
    historically have been important to the U.S. swordfish and tuna
    longline fleet, support NOAA's National Seafood Strategy?

        6c) How does closing all U.S. waters in the Northeast Canyons and
    Seamounts Marine National Monument to the red crab and lobster
    fisheries, which have operated there for over four decades while
    maintaining the ``pristine'' nature of the area, support NOAA's
    National Seafood Strategy?

        Question 7. Large-scale negative impact on commercial fishing and
    coastal communities is currently anticipated from the more-than 2,000
    proposed offshore structures to be constructed in connection with
    offshore wind energy production. Now, with the reimposition of
    commercial fishing restrictions in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
    Marine National Monument there is additional pressure on fishermen and
    those that rely on them for support.

        7a) What is NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service doing to study
    or in any way monitor what the cumulative impact of these proposals and
    conflicts will be on commercial fishing?

        7b) What is NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service doing to
    calculate the cost of these cumulative impacts on coastal communities?

        Question 8. The stated purpose of the Northeast Canyons and
    Seamounts Marine National Monument is to protect the deep-sea canyons
    and sea mounts in the area.

        8a) How does prohibiting the continued operation of sustainable
    commercial pelagic fisheries in the water column above the canyons and
    seamounts provide protection to these natural structures?

        8b) If NOAA holds that banning fishing activities above the deep-
    sea canyons and seamounts somehow provides protection to these natural
    structures below, why is recreational fishing permitted, especially
    since there are instances in which recreational fishers use the same
    gear as commercial fisheries?

        Question 9. What will be the statutory authority for regulations
    that prohibit commercial fishing in the Monument? What will be the
    enforcement mechanism?

    If the authority for the regulations is derived from the Magnuson
    Stevens Act:

        9a) What Fishery Management Plans are being modified and when will
    the National Marine Fisheries Service consult with the Fishery
    Management Councils on these changes?

        9b) How do these regulations help achieve Optimum Yield?

        9c) When will a fishery impact statement or NEPA document be
    completed to support these regulations, as required by the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act?

    If the authority for the regulations is derived from the Antiquities
    Act:

        9d) What is the penalty for violation these proposed regulations?

        Question 10 New England Fishery Management staff attempted to
    estimate the economic impacts of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
    Marine National Monument, based on work that had been done for the
    Deep-Sea Coral amendment. That work demonstrated that the New England
    Deep Sea Coral amendment protected a large percentage of the area
    covered by the Monument with fewer negative impacts.

        10a) What work has NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Agency
    completed to estimate the commercial fishing impacts of the Monument
    and the proposed reimposition of a commercial fishing ban?

        Question 11. Approximately 82% of the Northeast Canyons and
    Seamounts Marine National Monument is covered by the New England Deep
    Sea Coral Amendment. And an additional 5% is covered by the Mid-
    Atlantic Golden Tilefish Restricted Area. Accordingly, approximately
    87% or 88% of the monument is already protected under the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act. The 12% of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine
    National Monument that is not protected by Magnuson-Stevens but
    included in Monument is essentially the plateau above the canyons. That
    area is a gently sloping mud plateau with no special objects of any
    kind, but there has been historical fishing on that area, or above that
    area for the past 40-50 years. Both the NGOs who advocated for the
    monument, and the Draft Management Plan and Environmental Assessment
    refer to the monument area as ``largely pristine.''

        11a) Why is the 12% of the monument comprising the plateau included
    in the monument?

        11b) What is the justification for considering this region part of
    the smallest area necessary to protect the canyons and seamounts?

        11c) What is the purpose of banning commercial fishing in this
    area?

        Question 12. The Draft Environmental Assessment included in the
    Draft Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Northeast
    Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument is almost completely
    silent on impacts to the commercial fishery.

        12a) How is this consistent with NEPA guidance to evaluate
    cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
    actions?

                   Questions Submitted by Representative Case

        Question 1. What are some of the benefits of overlaying a Marine
    National Monument with a National Marine Sanctuary?

                 Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

        Question 1. There is a lack of clarity on how NOAA navigates the
    intersection of its various management authorities, such as the Office
    of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) and the National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NMFS).

        1a) How does the ONMS collaborate with other agencies to address
    activities outside of a sanctuary that impact the sanctuary's health
    (e.g., water quality)?

        1b) How do ONMS and NMFS work together to address concerns when
    fisheries are found to be harming the health of sanctuary resources?

        1c) How do NOAA and Department leadership engage to make sure the
    requirements of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act are met when
    protection may require fishery restrictions?

        1d) Who within NOAA is responsible for ensuring that management
    actions to secure the health of fisheries resources within a national
    marine sanctuary are referred to the regional fishery management
    council for timely consideration and decision making?

        1e) Who within NOAA is responsible for ensuring that fishery
    management council actions are sufficient to secure healthy sanctuary
    resources? What is the process for secretarial action when that
    standard is not met?

        1f) What is the process for navigating instances of fishery
    management and resource protection overlap?

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thanks, Assistant Secretary. I am now going to
    go to the Members for their 5 minutes. The first is Mrs.
    Radewagen, the gentlewoman from American Samoa.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Talofa lava. Thank you, Chairman Gosar and
    Ranking Member Stansbury, for allowing me to participate in
    today's hearing.
        Fishermen, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
    Council, or WESPAC, over 1,000 StarKist Samoa cannery workers,
    myself, our governor of American Samoa, and most other local
    officials representing ours and other Pacific territories are
    all pushing back against NOAA's plans for an expanded marine
    sanctuary around the PRIMNM, or Pacific Remote Islands Marine
    National Monument.
        With unanimous consent, I would like to submit the
    testimony from Governor Lemanu on the effect that a closure of
    fishing area would have on American Samoa.
        Dr. Gosar. Without objection, so ordered.

        [The information follows:]
                            Statement for the Record
                               Lemanu P. S. Mauga
                           Governor of American Samoa
                               September 16, 2023

        Dear Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and distinguished
    members of the Committee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (``NOAA'') recently released its Notice of Intent to
    Conduct Scoping and to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    for the Proposed Designation of a National Marine Sanctuary for the
    Pacific Remote Islands (the ``Notice''). These comments reflect the
    expected impact of that proposed designation and the position of the
    American Samoa Government.

        The importance of fishing and the ocean to the people and culture
    of American Samoa cannot be overstated. Samoans landed on these shores
    3,000 years ago and utilized the natural resources both on land and in
    the sea to build a rich community. The ocean and its marine resources
    have allowed Fa'asamoa, the Samoan way of life, to thrive for thousands
    of years. Samoan legends and cultural practices revolve around fishing
    and access to ocean waters. Fishing has provided Samoan people not just
    with food to eat but also a means to support families, especially
    during times of struggle.

        This reliance on fishing and marine resources has continued for
    centuries and remains the single largest pillar of the American Samoa
    economy today. The tuna industry is the largest private sector employer
    and supports one-third of our workforce. Canned tuna makes up over 99%
    of the total value of exports for our territory and accounts for about
    85% of our GDP.
        Without the local StarKist cannery, the cost of living for American
    Samoa residents would sky-rocket. In addition to providing thousands of
    jobs, the tuna industry also subsidizes things like utility and
    shipping costs that makes it possible for the community to survive and
    thrive on these remote islands.

        Unfortunately, the importance of these waters to the territory has
    been downplayed. Most of the fish caught in PRIA waters are landed in
    American Samoa. In turn, those fish provide jobs, support communities,
    and most importantly, put food on the tables of Samoan people.

        In American Samoa, we are already experiencing the effects of
    losing access to oceans. Further restrictions on commercial fishing in
    the Pacific will discourage vessels from landing their catch in
    American Samoa. It will drive further loss for this community that
    already faces so many struggles. Without access to these waters, the
    tuna industry may very well sink here in American Samoa, and our
    economy with it.

        As a small island community, we are keenly aware of the effects of
    climate change and the need for preservation of natural resources. The
    people of American Samoa see first-hand the devastating effects of
    extreme weather on physical infrastructure. We are vulnerable to
    widespread food and water insecurity, lack of access to social services
    and in the worst cases, forced displacements. Due to climate change,
    the ocean that has sustained American Samoans for centuries is now
    threatening our daily lives. The carbon footprint of American Samoa is
    very small. Yet, we are bearing the brunt of these climate impacts due
    to the actions of industrialized nations. This designation, however
    well-intentioned, is not in the best interest of Pacific Islanders.

        Marine National Monument expansions in 2009 and 2014 resulted in
    the loss of access to more than 50% of the US EEZs in the Pacific. Now,
    a designation of additional Pacific waters as a National Marine
    Sanctuary is being considered, which would effectively close access to
    nearly 777,000 miles of Pacific Ocean.

        The United States and American Samoa have been partners in the
    Pacific for over 120 years. We have played an important role in
    national security in this region and we value our strong relationship
    with the United States and the federal government. As the state or
    territory with the most armed service members per capita, you will not
    find a more patriotic place than American Samoa. Unfortunately, federal
    actions taken without consultation of impacted communities can have
    unintended consequences. There is no equity when the people that these
    federal actions will impact have no say and no voice.

        It must be acknowledged that the threats to the American Samoan
    economy, culture, and society identified hereinafter are exponentially
    multiplied by the concurrent proposed rulemaking related to the Effort
    Limit Area for Purse Seine Fisheries (``ELAPS''). These two proposals
    cannot be viewed individually, and any consideration must be based on
    their devastating combined effect. With that in mind, American Samoa
    provides these additional comments on the proposed designation:

    A. Socioeconomic Effects:

      1.  The Tuna Industry is American Samoa's Primary Economic Driver:
                The tuna industry, and specifically the StarKist cannery,
                the American Samoan fishing fleet, and their related
                support industries are the largest private sector employer
                in American Samoa. In fact, American Samoa's non-
                governmental economy is almost entirely built on tuna
                related commerce. The tuna industry provides 83.8% of
                American Samoa's private employment.\1\ The StarKist
                cannery itself is the largest private employer in American
                Samoa and employs 2,631 individuals representing
                approximately 15.5% of the entire labor force.\2\
                Additionally, total tuna exports from American Samoa are
                valued at $353 million per year, with canned tuna making up
                99.5% of the total value of all American Samoa's
                exports.\3\ Further, the lone remaining cannery accounts
                for 85% of American Samoa's GDP.\4\ The American Samoa
                population is heavily dependent on the StarKist cannery to
                provide food security for the region.\5\ Additionally,
                StarKist Samoa is the only tuna cannery that packs military
                pouches for Meals Ready to Eat (MRE). American Samoa prides
                itself with the highest enlistment rate per capita and
                service members are proud to see the American Samoa flag on
                these tuna pouches.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ American Samoa PRIA Tuna Importance Presentation Page 3.
        \2\ WPRFMC Letter Page 3.
        \3\ See 2021 Statistical Yearbook Table 10.1 Page 128.
        \4\ American Samoa PRIA Tuna Importance Presentation Page 24.
        \5\ American Samoa PRIA Tuna Importance Presentation Page 3.

      2.  Impacts Caused by the Proposed Designation to American Samoa and
                the Fishing Industry Are Substantial and will Lead to
                Economic Catastrophe: The cumulative effects from the
                proposed restrictions on commercial fishing pose an
                existential threat to the future of the American Samoa-
                based tuna purse seine fleet and, as a result, a real and
                severe threat to the economy of American Samoa.\6\ The
                proposed rules will likely result in the loss of the tuna
                industry in American Samoa leading to the loss of 5,000
                jobs, a potential 40% increase in shipping freight and
                cost, and result in a significant loss in GDP. In the past
                three years, the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet has been
                reduced from 34 vessels to just 13 vessels operating today.
                The remaining vessels are based in American Samoa and
                support the local economy by delivering tuna to the
                StarKist facility thereby utilizing a range of goods and
                services provided by local businesses.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Page 2.
        \7\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Page 2.

          The proposed rule will likely result in similar negative economic
                impacts caused by the 2015 ELAPS closure. A NOAA study
                evaluated the economic impacts of the 2015 ELAPS closure to
                purse seine vessels, canneries, and vessel support
                facilities in American Samoa. The estimated economic losses
                due to the ELAPS closure were valued up to $110 million.\8\
                This was Eight (8) years ago, and the value of this loss
                today would be significantly higher. Further, American
                Samoa fishing efforts are predominantly located in the US
                EEZ. When the PRIA monument was expanded in 2014 & 2016,
                over half of the fishing ground was lost. Currently,
                approximately 57% of the US Pacific EEZ prohibits
                commercial fishing. The proposed rule will potentially
                increase that percentage to 70%, thus, having a
                disproportionally adverse effect on the American Samoa
                fishing fleet, which will likely lead to economic
                collapse.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ American Samoa PRIA Tuna Importance Presentation Page 15.
        \9\ American Samoa PRIA Tuna Importance Presentation Page 24.

      3.  American Samoa's Current Fishing Practices are Sustainable 10:
                \10\ American Samoa has a relatively small locally based
                tuna purse seiner fleet that supplies the majority of the
                raw material needs of the StarKist cannery, the lone
                remaining cannery located within American Samoa. These
                vessels are also bound by U.S. laws and standards to ensure
                minimal adverse effects on the environment--standards that
                exceed foreign and international requirements. The Pacific
                Remote Island Areas (``PRIA''), consisting of Howland and
                Baker Islands, Palmyra atoll and Kingman Reef, have been
                traditional fishing grounds for the U.S. fleet that
                supplied the local cannery even before the establishment of
                the PRIMNM. The proposed designation that would create a
                National Marine Sanctuary up to 200 miles out will have a
                devastatingly negative impact to the U.S. fleet. This will
                be especially hard on American Samoa. Without a sustainable
                fish supply, the American Samoa tuna industry will
                collapse, and its economy soon will follow. This would lead
                to an economic catastrophe that no U.S. state or territory
                has experienced in recent times.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ WPRFMC Letter Pages 1-3.

          Pacific Insular Areas contain unique historical, cultural, legal,
                political, and geographical circumstances which make
                fisheries resources important in sustaining their economic
                growth.\11\ The WPRFMC has established federal permitting
                and reporting, gear restrictions, protected species
                mitigation measures, no-take Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
                which have successfully maintained the biodiversity and
                unique cultural and historical resources in the PRIA to
                this day without the additional restrictions being
                proposed.\12\ The existing commercial fisheries in the
                region occur offshore in the open ocean (at least 50 NM
                from land) and have no interaction with or impact on the
                resources in the nearshore environment, coral reefs,
                oceanic seamounts, or other ecosystems and habitats needing
                protection.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ WPRFMC Letter Page 1.
        \12\ WPRFMC Letter Page 1.
        \13\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Pages 3-4.

      4.  Current Boundaries are the Result of a 2014 Compromise that Must
                be Respected: The 2014 fishing boundaries, which are still
                in effect today, were a result of a compromise between the
                Obama administration, American Samoa, and the fishing
                industry which expanded the sanctuary to the specific
                islands while maintaining previous boundaries. These
                boundaries should be upheld as agreed upon by all
                interested stakeholders.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Page 4.

          In 2014, President Obama expanded that Monument to include the
                entire U.S. EEZ around Wake Island, Johnston Atoll, and
                Jarvis Island. The loss of fishing opportunities in Jarvis
                Island, in particular, dealt a significant blow to the
                industry, as the EEZ around Jarvis Island was among the
                richest traditional fishing grounds for the American Samoa-
                based fleet. Within two years of this action, one of the
                two canneries that operated in American Samoa at the time
                closed for good.\15\ This is the reason the StarKist
                cannery is the lone operating cannery today, and evidences
                the fact that further restriction will likely result in the
                closure of this cannery as well.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Pages 2-3.

      5.  Additional Regulation Will Likely Force the American Samoa
                Fishing Fleet to Leave America Samoa: The closure of U.S.
                waters within the current marine monument is one major
                reason why the American Samoa fleet is forced to pay as
                much as $2M per vessel annually to Pacific Island nations
                to access the productive tuna fishing grounds within their
                waters, and further closures would further exacerbate this
                situation. The current financial situation recently forced
                the sale to foreign operators of multiple U.S. purse seine
                vessels (approximately 20% of the entire U.S. fleet)
                thereby reducing U.S. tuna production by approximately
                70,000 tons and increasing the U.S. seafood trade deficit
                by up to $100 million annually. Any additional constraints
                on the industry will likely result in a mass exodus of the
                American Samoa fishing fleet, closely followed by the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                closure of the cannery.

      6.  American Samoa is Unaware of any Scientific Evidence that the
                designation of a National Marine Sanctuary in the PRIA
                Region Will Produce the Desired Ecological Results: There
                is no scientific evidence to support the notion that large-
                scale closures in ``blue water'' open ocean ecosystems
                (such as the designation of a national marine sanctuary)
                have any impact on the sustainability of highly migratory
                species like tuna, are effective for protecting
                biodiversity in these dynamic ecosystems, or can mitigate
                stressors such as climate change. The existing commercial
                fisheries in the region occur offshore in the open ocean
                (at least 50 NM from land) and have no interaction with or
                impact on the resources in the nearshore environment, coral
                reefs, oceanic seamounts, or other ecosystems and habitats
                needing protection.\16\ The Fisheries are highly regulated
                and monitored to ensure strict adherence to requirements
                and procedures to minimize interactions with marine
                mammals, sharks, rays, sea turtles, sea birds, and other
                marine fauna.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Pages 3-4.
        \17\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Pages 3-4.

          At least two recent papers by highly respected scientific
                authorities (Hilborn, et al., 2022, and Hampton, et al.,
                2023) conclude that large, open ocean marine protected
                areas (MPAs) have little tangible benefit for the resources
                being managed.\18\ Large, open ocean MPAs are designed to
                protect huge swaths of open ocean, but are a poor choice
                for efficiently and effectively managing fisheries.\19\
                ``Because of their size and scale, [large, open ocean MPAs]
                gamer lots of splashy headlines and notoriety for the
                conservation organizations and politicians who implement
                them,'' but they ``do nothing to alleviate'' the ``most
                pressing threats to biodiversity in the oceans'' such as
                ``climate change, ocean acidification, and land-based
                pollutants.'' \20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Pages 4-5.
        \19\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Pages 4-5.
        \20\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Pages 4-5.

          On the contrary, the result of large static area closures are a
                transfer of fishing efforts from one place to another,
                oftentimes at the expense of conservation. Instead of
                fishing in U.S. waters where they have privileged access,
                these U.S.-flagged vessels will have to fish elsewhere,
                likely further away from American Samoa, thereby increasing
                their costs and decreasing the control the U.S. will have
                over such vessels. This situation also exacerbates the
                ``uneven playing field'' the American Samoa fleet and
                fishing industry face while competing with heavily
                subsidized fishing industries such as China's in waters
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                that are already heavily fished.

      7.  The Designation of a National Marine Sanctuary in the PRIA Region
                and Restrictions in Commercial Fishing in the Sanctuary
                Will Likely Result in a Material Drop in American Samoa's
                Population and Additional Costs by the Federal Government.
                American Samoa is highly dependent on the United States for
                financial assistance to support its infrastructure,
                harbors, airports, hospital, and schools. If the American
                Samoa tuna industry collapses, American Samoa's
                unemployment will skyrocket, and its citizens will be
                forced to leave to find new opportunities elsewhere. This
                loss of jobs combined with the material decrease in
                population will result in fewer tax dollars being collected
                while more citizens will need government assistance.
                Considering that government employment already accounted
                for about 40.3% of all employment in American Samoa, and
                government jobs continued to climb in the last 5 years,\21\
                these additional restrictions could result in the virtual
                elimination of private industry in American Samoa,
                requiring it to become more dependent on U.S. financial
                aid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ See 2021 Statistical Yearbook Page 127.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    B. Effect of Spatial Extent/Geopolitical Effects:

      1.  The Designation of a National Marine Sanctuary in the PRIA Region
                Will Hurt U.S. National Security Interests: The activities
                of the American Samoa-based fleet provide a critical
                counterbalance to China's growing influence across the
                region. As a result, maintaining a viable American Samoa-
                based purse seine fleet operating in the Pacific Ocean
                contributes not only to the United States and American
                Samoa economy, but to regional food security, national
                security, and other vital national interests. For example,
                the StarKist cannery is one of the only, if not the only,
                cannery that is currently certified to perform tuna packs
                that meet the U.S. Military's requirements to supply tuna
                to U.S. servicemen and servicewomen. Any risk to the
                StarKist cannery therefore risks the ability of the U.S.
                Military to adequately provide safely sourced provisions
                for its fighting force which will have far reaching effects
                worldwide.

      2.  The Designation of a National Marine Sanctuary in the PRIA Region
                Will Put American Samoa's Fishing Fleet at a Competitive
                Disadvantage vis-a-vis Its International Competition:
                Further restrictions on commercial fishing (i.e. area
                restrictions proposed herein) will further discourage
                commercial vessels in American Samoa and decrease the fish
                landed back in American Samoa, further constraining the
                supply of fish to the cannery there. Canneries in Mexico
                and Ecuador would be the beneficiaries, to the detriment of
                U.S. interests.\22\ Fishing prohibitions not only weaken
                U.S. fisheries but also increase seafood imports and
                jeopardize U.S. food and national security. The proposed
                National Marine Sanctuary would continue to displace U.S.
                fishing fleets to international waters where they must fish
                alongside and compete with foreign fishing fleets. Fishing
                vessels from China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan are regularly
                observed fishing the border of the U.S. EEZ around American
                Samoa, Hawaii and the PRIA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Pages 2-3.

      3.  Another Step in the US Ceding the Pacific to China: China
                continues to build up its longline fleet in the Western and
                Central Pacific Ocean which has increased from around 100
                vessels in 2007 to over 520 now (catching approximately
                50,000 metric tons of tuna annually). China's fleet also
                includes 73 purse seine vessels. In comparison, there are
                14 U.S.-flagged longline vessels and 13 U.S.-flagged purse
                seine vessels based in American Samoa. China is making a
                concentrated effort to integrate its economic, diplomatic,
                military and technological might to expand its influence
                throughout the Pacific. This approach by China appears to
                be very effective, as evidenced by the recent bilateral
                agreements made with our Pacific neighbors, including the
                Independent State of Samoa. Further restrictions will
                reduce US presence in the Pacific and allow China's
                presence to grow.\23\ The presence of the US fleet in the
                Pacific has declined due to international regulations under
                the WCPFC that limit activities of US vessels on high seas
                which create a competition imbalance between US and China
                fleets.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ ATA Comments on Proposed PRIMNM Pages 5-6.
        \24\ WPRFMC Letter Page 3.

          The U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy highlights concern over China's
                influence in the Pacific region and its vulnerable island
                countries. If China succeeds in using the bilateral
                agreements with the island nations in the Pacific region,
                their heavily subsidized fishing fleets will harvest the
                fish supply from within the fishing zones that will be
                denied to the U.S. fishing fleet. The United States is
                losing influence in the international fisheries management
                organizations, such as the Western and Central Pacific
                Commission, due to weakened U.S. fisheries. These impacts
                are exacerbated by the loss of U.S. fishing grounds as a
                result of monument designations. Deterrence of foreign
                fishing fleet encroachment in the U.S. EEZ is compromised
                when U.S. commercial fishing vessels are removed from 70%
                of the entire U.S. EEZ that is now under monument
                protection. Reducing fishing grounds by designating a
                national marine sanctuary will aid this Chinese expansion
                by forcing our U.S. fishing vessels out of U.S. waters.
                This is the time for the United States to use American
                Samoa to increase the U.S. presence in the Pacific region
                to provide security and economic development to the island
                nations presently seeking or signing bilateral agreements
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                with China.

    C. Cultural Effects:

      1.  The Proposed National Marine Sanctuary Infringes on American
                Samoa's Traditional Fishing Grounds: The PRIA and the high
                seas have been historically important traditional fishing
                grounds for the American Samoa people. Due to the creation
                of the Marine National Monument by President Bush in 2009
                and expansion by President Obama in 2014 and 2016, more
                than 50% of the U.S. EEZs in the Pacific are closed to
                commercial fishing which includes the American Samoa-based
                U.S. flagged tuna vessels. The contemplated designation
                will increase the closed areas to approximately 70% of the
                U.S. EEZs in the Pacific.

      2.  The Proposed National Marine Sanctuary Closes the Area to
                Traditional Seafarers and Navigators: There is currently a
                cultural reawakening occurring in American Samoa, including
                traditional seafarers and navigators. The PRIA is in the
                historical and culturally significant sea routes, requiring
                this area to be open to the people of American Samoa.

      3.  The Designation Could Result in the Loss of Kosher Tuna: The
                StarKist is also one of the only canneries that are able to
                perform a certified kosher tuna pack. The potential loss of
                the cannery due to the expansion of the PRIMNM would have a
                significant effect on the Jewish population of the U.S. and
                it would eliminate a source of clean and healthy kosher
                protein.

    D. Legal Effects

      1.  The designation is likely a violation of U.S. Law: The
                designation of a National Marine Sanctuary in the PRIA
                region is likely a violation of U.S. Law, including but not
                limited to the Magnuson Stevens Act, the Western and
                Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act,
                the Deeds of Cession, and/or multiple Executive Orders.
                Additionally, this policy change is inconsistent with the
                position of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council,
                a likely violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
                Conservation and Management Act to make fishery-management
                decisions for the PRIA region.

      2.  The Designation Will Disproportionally Burden American Samoa: Any
                adverse impact to the American Samoa tuna industry will
                result in job losses and other residual effects that will
                further increase the poverty level of what is already by
                far the poorest territory or state in the U.S. and
                perpetuate inequities for years to come. The U.S. Pacific
                Island community should not carry the full conservation
                burden of the country under the ``America the Beautiful''
                initiative outlined in Executive Order 14008. The proposal
                for the Marine Sanctuary designation states it will ensure
                over 30% of the conservation goal under ``America the
                Beautiful.'' But this would be counter to Sec. 219 of
                Executive Order 14008 on securing an equitable future for
                the underserved American Samoa community. It would also run
                counter to Executive Order 13985, which makes it the policy
                of your administration to ``pursue a comprehensive approach
                to advancing equity for all . . . including people of color
                and others who have been historically underserved,
                marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty
                and inequality.'' The people of American Samoa fall under
                these categories of underserved and historically
                disadvantaged communities as approximately 57% of our
                population lives in poverty.

          The Pacific region has already done more than its share to
                achieve the goals of the 30x30 Initiative. It is likely
                contrary to U.S. Laws including but not limited to the
                Magnuson Stevens Act, the Western and Central Pacific
                Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, the Deeds of
                Cession, and/or multiple executive orders for American
                Samoa to be singled out to bear the burden of the
                designation. That burden is a very heavy one for the people
                of American Samoa due to their dependence on fishing access
                of their fleets in these waters. The welfare of the U.S.
                Nationals who rely on and whose ancestors relied on fishing
                to sustain the local economy must be considered.

      3.  American Samoa Is an Underserved Community That Requires
                Protection: Under another but still current Presidential
                Executive Order 13537, the IGIA shall solicit information
                and advice from the elected leaders of the U.S. Insular
                Areas of Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin
                Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
                Islands and make recommendations to the President annually,
                or as appropriate, on the establishment or implementation
                of Federal programs concerning these Insular Areas. Failure
                to do this prior to any expansion of the PRIMNM likely
                violates Executive Order 13537. This is also in line with
                Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support
                for Underserved Communities, such as American Samoa which
                is a prime example of an underserved community with more
                than 50% of our residents below the US poverty level.

      4.  American Samoan Fishing Community Continues to Suffer from
                Unfair, Subsidized Competition by its Pacific Neighbors:
                Further increasing the PRIMNM by over 50% would destroy our
                fishing economy. Yet thousands of foreign fishing boats,
                predominantly Chinese, surround that PRIA region border and
                often encroach and illegally fish upon it. The PRIMNM was
                one of the 6 recommended, and most commonsensically, to be
                managed under the long existing legal rubric Congress has
                prescribed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management
                Act. However, actions on other areas including those
                related to restoration of management and control of the
                PRIMNM to the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council
                await and the American Samoan fishing community continues
                to suffer in the meantime from unfair, subsidized
                competition by its Pacific neighbors.

        Accordingly, American Samoa respectfully submits this comment for
    the hearing titled ``Examining Barriers to Access in Federal Waters: A
    Closer Look at the Marine Sanctuary and Monument System.''

                                     ______

        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        To entertain further fishing restrictions and say that it
    will not put further jobs at risk in American Samoa is not
    credible.
        That being said, we do appreciate all the hard work NOAA
    does in the Pacific, and my thoughts are with the crew of the
    Rainier, as I know surviving a fire can be a traumatic
    experience, and I hope they get a lot of R&R in my home
    district of American Samoa.
        Secretary Bavishi, what science was used to conclude that
    the sanctuary would benefit tunas and other highly migratory
    species by closing commercial fisheries from 50 out to 200
    miles?
        Ms. Bavishi. Thank you, Congresswoman Radewagen, for the
    question.
        We just actually held a workshop in American Samoa last
    week, and co-chaired it with the Government of American Samoa,
    and we were really thankful for that partnership.
        One thing that we stated at the workshop that I want to
    state for the record today is that we have not made any
    decisions regarding fishing regulations in the proposed
    sanctuary. What we communicated at the workshop is where we are
    in the process, is that we are developing alternatives that
    will be available for public comment with the draft
    environmental impact statement, which we plan to release in the
    spring of next year. Those alternatives will consider both
    regulatory actions, but also different options for boundaries
    of the sanctuary. And no decision has been made right now about
    prohibition of commercial fishing.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Can you elaborate on what data did NOAA use
    to evaluate the economic impacts on the U.S. tuna purse seine
    fishery and the economy of American Samoa before proposing the
    complete prohibition on commercial fishing in the sanctuary?
        Ms. Bavishi. Again, let me just clarify that we have not
    proposed the complete prohibition of fishing in the sanctuary.
    We are in a process of developing alternatives.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. My time is short. And lastly,
    did NOAA consider the issues of equity and environmental
    justice, as outlined in various White House Executive Orders,
    when assessing the potential impact of the sanctuary on
    American Samoa?
        Ms. Bavishi. Absolutely. Environmental justice is of utmost
    importance to NOAA and to the sanctuary process, and that is
    why the sanctuary process is so highly participatory. We take
    into account public input at every step of the process. We have
    held a 45-day scoping period, where we received more than
    50,000 comments, held seven in-person workshops across the
    region, as well as two virtual scoping sessions. And we also
    held a workshop, as I mentioned before, in American Samoa last
    week to continue to hear the concerns of stakeholders and
    community. We will continue to emphasize public input across
    the entire process.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I
    may have additional questions that I will submit for the
    record.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from American Samoa. The
    gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Ms. Bavishi, thank you for your testimony. I am just going
    to follow up on my colleague's question. How do you determine
    the economic impact when you are going through your evaluation,
    quickly?
        Ms. Bavishi. NOAA will work across line offices, first of
    all. So, it will not just be the Office of National Marine
    Sanctuaries, but we will work in close coordination with the
    National Marine Fisheries Service to evaluate economic impact.
    We will also take into account any data provided by our state
    and territorial partners, as well as public input.
        Mr. Case. And then the Chair in his opening remarks, I
    think, was critical that, and I am going to put words in your
    mouth, there was not actual public input, that these decisions
    were being made inside of, I forget what your characterization
    was, but inside of Washington. Can you just briefly outline
    again what you have done to date in this nomination for a
    sanctuary process?
        You talked about a full 50,000 comments coming in. Is that
    what you said?
        And where did those comments come in from, where were those
    eight meetings? Were they in Hawaii, throughout the Pacific?
    Just outline it.
        Ms. Bavishi. That is right. NOAA solicited comments during
    a 45-day public comment period. NOAA received, actually,
    approximately 57,000 comments during the scoping period. These
    comments came from a diverse cross-section of stakeholders in
    the region.
        We also held seven in-person public meetings in the
    territories, as you mentioned, and in Hawaii, and two virtual
    meetings, as well, to gather public input.
        And we had heard from the governor of American Samoa. I met
    with him personally in Honolulu last month, and I also have
    been in touch with the governors of Guam and CNMI, as well, to
    understand their concerns. And they had requested additional
    dialogue, so we held another workshop in American Samoa just
    last week.
        Mr. Case. What further opportunities in the process for
    public input? The public will get to comment all over again on
    your draft EIS and proposed options?
        Ms. Bavishi. That is right. When we release draft documents
    for the designation, which will be in spring of next year, we
    will release a draft EIS, any draft regulations, as well, and
    the public will have a chance to comment on those documents.
        Mr. Case. OK, thank you. One of the arguments forwarded
    against the sanctuary designation, and we will hear it in the
    next testimony, is that the U.S. purse seine fleet is going to
    be harmed, should there be an expansion of the sanctuary out to
    the full 200 nautical mile EEZ. And the purse seine fleet has
    declined precipitously over the last couple of years.
    Obviously, we have not expanded the sanctuary yet. My stats
    have it at 34 in 2019 down to about 13 today. That is a pretty
    significant decline in a very short period of time. Why is the
    U.S. purse seine fleet declining?
        Ms. Bavishi. There could be a number of reasons for the
    decline of the American purse seine fleet.
        NOAA Fisheries closely monitors the fleet with daily
    records of catch, discards, and effort. In 2020, 10 vessels
    visited the PRIA, the Pacific Remote Islands Area, EEZs. Fewer
    vessels visited in 2021 and 2022 due to the continued reduction
    in size of the fleet.
        There are several reasons that the purse seine fleet could
    be declining. It could be attributed to international
    competition. It could be attributed to the requirements of the
    cannery. It could also be attributed to the designation of the
    national marine monument, as well. We are taking the historical
    impacts of the monument into account as we move forward with
    the sanctuary designation, as well as any proposed management
    actions that the sanctuary designation would provide.
        Mr. Case. OK. So, there is a mix of reasons why it could be
    declining.
        And do you have an assessment of how fish stocks are doing
    in the Pacific at present? I am focusing in particular on
    Papahanaumokuakea, where the argument at the time against the
    monument designation was that it would do irreversible damage
    to the availability of fish both in and out, obviously, in. Is
    there evidence that somehow fish stocks have been harmed in the
    area around that particular monument in the last almost two
    decades it has been in effect?
        Ms. Bavishi. No, there is no evidence that those fish
    stocks have been harmed that I know of.
        Mr. Case. OK. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentlewoman from New
    Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, is recognized, the Ranking Member.
        Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    start by zooming out a little bit, and helping folks who are
    watching know the back story and sort of understand the NOAA
    process for designation, how certain places get nominated, how
    the process works, how stakeholders are engaged, how the
    science is developed, in particular because I think probably
    many of the folks watching may not be as familiar with the
    process.
        So, if you could start out, Assistant Secretary, help us
    understand. How does NOAA identify prospective national marine
    monuments? Are they brought to NOAA? Is it something that NOAA
    initiates? How does the process work?
        Ms. Bavishi. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman
    Stansbury.
        The nomination process starts with an organization or an
    individual submitting a nomination through the sanctuary
    nomination process. NOAA uses a set of criteria to evaluate
    whether a particular site is eligible for sanctuary
    designation. If it is deemed to be eligible, then it will be
    added to the NOAA inventory, but that does not indicate a
    prioritization or an intention to move forward with a
    designation process.
        If the designation is moved forward, then during that
    designation process, public input is absolutely critical. And I
    can walk through that process, if you would like.
        Ms. Stansbury. What are some of the primary criteria that
    is used by any Administration to determine whether or not it is
    a good place to do a designation?
        Ms. Bavishi. It would depend on things like the
    biodiversity of the area, other ecological features. We want to
    make sure that we are focusing on areas whose ecological
    features are important to both the ecosystem, but also to other
    economic uses and human uses, as well.
        Ms. Stansbury. So, for the specific expansion that we have
    been talking about here this morning, the Pacific Remote
    Islands Marine National Monument, how did that become
    initiated? How did it become a priority? How did the process
    happen at NOAA, and where exactly are you in the process?
        Ms. Bavishi. The Pacific Remote Islands Sanctuary
    designation process started with a Presidential Memorandum to
    the Secretary of Commerce, where the President asked the
    Secretary to consider initiating a designation process for a
    national marine sanctuary.
        We started with a scoping period that I have described
    already in my testimony. We started with 45 days of scoping,
    where the public was able to provide us with comments. All
    these comments are taken into consideration in subsequent
    phases of the process.
        We will now prepare draft documents, including a draft
    environmental impact statement that identifies boundary and/or
    regulatory alternatives, a draft management plan, any notice of
    proposed rulemaking to define proposed sanctuary regulations.
    These documents will be followed by public comment, and then
    after the public comment we will prepare final documents. And
    then the sanctuary would take effect after 45 days of
    continuous session of Congress, during which Congress gets to
    review.
        Ms. Stansbury. And why expansion of this particular
    monument? What is special about this area?
        And I know you have already touched on this in the previous
    question lines, but we have heard concerns raised by locals who
    are working and fishing in the area, and it sounds like there
    is an extensive public process in front of the Administration
    to even consider next movements on this particular designation.
        But (1) tell us why this area is special? Why is it worthy
    of expansion and protection?
        And (2) how will the Administration and the agency take
    into consideration these economic and fisheries impacts?
        Ms. Bavishi. This is an area that is rich in biodiversity
    and is incredibly important to managing climate change going
    forward. It can be an area that can provide storage and carbon
    sequestration.
        But part of the reason that the White House chose to
    designate this area through a national marine sanctuary process
    instead of under the Antiquities Act is because of the emphasis
    on public participation. Sanctuaries allow for comprehensive
    management that allow for continual public input. So, once a
    sanctuary is designated, a sanctuary advisory council will also
    be appointed, and that will create an opportunity for ongoing
    dialogue with diverse stakeholders that will be absolutely
    critical to ensuring robust management of this area.
        Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. And I know I am out of time here,
    but I do want to acknowledge and thank Congresswoman Radewagen
    for hosting us in the Pacific Islands as part of our task force
    on issues involving those communities. And certainly, we
    support our island communities in American Samoa, but also want
    to make sure that we are protecting biodiversity and our
    fisheries for generations to come. Thank you.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
        Assistant Secretary, I am going to tell you a story. The
    story starts off with grazing leasing over in Arizona. Now, it
    is a far, far cry away from marine sanctuaries. My whole point
    was that we saw the decimation of the leasing program, grazing
    leases. We saw them reduce by 47 percent the first year, 45
    percent the second year. And this was in light of a huge
    monsoon moisture project that came through.
        So, we started to look at this, and it took bringing out
    the Forest Service Chief to actually enter into an MOU with the
    ranchers because there are some vital aspects here.
        Tell me why we wouldn't go in an area like this to a pilot
    project on a smaller scale and expand it. What would you say
    about that?
        Ms. Bavishi. I am sorry, I cannot speak to leasing.
        Dr. Gosar. No, no, no, but it is the same principle. The
    same principle is that we overlooked a whole bunch of things
    that were not proper, and we had to go back and redo a
    Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the
    leasing.
        My point here is why wouldn't we do something on a little
    smaller scale in this area as a pilot to understand the
    ramifications to the locals and to that process? Why wouldn't
    we do that?
        Ms. Bavishi. Well, I would say that the sanctuary process
    provides a framework for comprehensive management that is done
    in concert with a diverse set of stakeholders.
        Dr. Gosar. Let me stop you right there. Why would that be
    different than the current situation with the fisheries in
    consultation with the locals, and that kind of aspect?
        What is so great about that aspect that it supersedes that
    consultation process?
        Ms. Bavishi. Fisheries management is one form of management
    of marine resources. It is focused on production. It is focused
    on production of healthy populations. The National Marine
    Sanctuaries Act provides another tool for management of marine
    resources. It provides the tool of conservation. So, what we
    are doing here is bringing another tool in our toolbox to bear.
        The great thing about this tool, though, is that it
    provides us with a framework that allows us to work with the
    fisheries management council, in concert with the fisheries
    management council, as well as other stakeholders, to really
    come up with a comprehensive way of managing this area for this
    generation, but also to manage future threats that we know are
    coming.
        Dr. Gosar. So, I am just being devil's advocate here,
    particularly in this area, would you weight a consultation
    process one over another, say locals get a higher vantage point
    of weight on their consultation aspect versus maybe a cannery
    or whatever?
        Ms. Bavishi. No, our goal is to speak to all the
    stakeholders that are interested in participating in the
    process, and we are certainly creating venues to reach those
    stakeholders.
        Dr. Gosar. When I had a chance to talk to you, you were
    very keen about your consultation with the locals. Can you give
    us a little bit of an outline on that?
        Ms. Bavishi. Sure. I think one thing that we talked about,
    Chair Gosar, is the workshop that we held in American Samoa
    just last week. We held this workshop, like I said before, I
    met with the governor of American Samoa, Governor Mauga, and he
    expressed his concerns to me, and we said we really wanted to
    co-host with him a workshop to continue the dialogue with
    stakeholders and community in American Samoa. We did that last
    week, and there are a couple of takeaways that came out of that
    conversation.
        First, the cannery is of utmost importance to American
    Samoa, and we hear that.
        We also heard the desire among locals and American Samoa to
    diversify their economy. But we know that is going to take
    time.
        And then I think the other thing that we really affirmed on
    both sides is that the goal for both NOAA and for the
    Government of American Samoa is to balance economic well-being
    and conservation, and we have to figure out what that right
    balance is, and we hope that this process will be a vehicle to
    do that.
        Dr. Gosar. Which brings me back to my point. Trust is a
    series of promises kept. Why wouldn't we start in a smaller
    scale, in a pilot project, instead of something so grand? That
    is just my point.
        Ms. Bavishi. Well, in some ways I would argue that the
    Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument did serve as
    that pilot project.
        But I would say that what we are doing now is to create a
    framework that allows for more public participation than the
    monument does. Our hope is that a sanctuary designation will
    actually allow for continuous public participation, continuous
    input, not only during the designation process, but as I said
    before, after the designation we will appoint an advisory
    council that will allow us to continue to coordinate with key
    stakeholders in the region.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, once again, to be a devil's advocate here,
    when you look at the Horse and Burro Advisory Group, the
    Administration waited almost 3 years to reappoint five of the
    nine slots, so they couldn't get anything done. I guess my
    point is where in the system is it broken right now that you
    see needs to be fixed? What is broken?
        Ms. Bavishi. What we are aiming to do here is to provide a
    more comprehensive management framework.
        Dr. Gosar. I understand. But what is broken to demand that
    more comprehensive aspect?
        Ms. Bavishi. There are areas that are not protected by the
    national marine monument that will be protected by the
    sanctuary. And what we are aiming to do is to figure out the
    right balance of uses, and to accomplish our conservation
    goals.
        Dr. Gosar. I guess my last point is that once again comes
    back to why wouldn't we do a pilot study in those areas, those
    localized areas, instead of the whole grand scheme?
        Ms. Bavishi. As I said before, I think the monument in many
    ways was the pilot, and we are expanding from there.
        Dr. Gosar. OK. Well, I thank you very much for your
    testimony. You are dismissed. I thank you very much for being
    so candid with this group and this panel. And we are going to
    take a short recess until we get the next panel up and running.
    So, thank you very much, Assistant Secretary.
        Ms. Bavishi. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Dr. Gosar. I will now introduce our second panel of
    witnesses.
        First, we have Mr. Bill Gibbons-Fly, Executive Director of
    the American Tuna Boat Association; Ms. Florence Kargi,
    Regional Affairs Manager, Coastal Villages Regional Fund; Mr.
    William Johnson Aila, a Native Hawaiian fisherman; and Mr. Eric
    Reid, Fishing Industry Council.
        Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
    they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
    entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
        To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on
    your microphone so we can all hear you.
        We use timing lights here, so when you see the green timing
    light you are ready to go. When you see yellow, start
    summarizing. And when it turns red, prepare to stop.
        I will let all witnesses testify before Members start
    questioning.
        I now recognize Mr. Gibbons-Fly for 5 minutes.
        You are recognized.

      STATEMENT OF BILL GIBBONS-FLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
               TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND

        Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury,
    distinguished members of this Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you this morning.
        I am here to testify to the impact on the U.S. Pacific
    fishing fleets and to the economy of American Samoa from the
    designation of Pacific marine national monuments under the
    Antiquities Act, and the proposed creation of a Pacific Remote
    Islands Marine National Sanctuary under the National Marine
    Sanctuaries Act.
        Put bluntly, these two pieces of legislation have been and
    are being used to bypass the rigorous fisheries management
    system established by Congress to the detriment of U.S.
    interests.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States has the most robust and
    comprehensive fisheries management system anywhere in the
    world. The Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes an inclusive and
    science-based process with participation of officials from the
    Federal Government, state and territorial governments,
    scientists and academics, and a wide range of private-sector
    stakeholders, all to ensure that U.S. fisheries are conducted
    in a responsible and sustainable manner.
        Yet, what we are seeing is a disturbing trend to toss this
    entire congressionally-mandated system aside, and close vast
    waters under U.S. jurisdiction to commercial fishing with no
    scientific justification or rationale, and with little thought
    to the economic consequences to the U.S. economy, the economies
    of our U.S. territories, domestic and regional food security,
    and, yes, even national security.
        This is important, Mr. Chairman, because our industry is
    struggling to survive and, with it, so is the tuna-dependent
    economy of American Samoa.
        In the past 3 years, the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet has
    been reduced from 34 vessels to just 13 vessels operating
    today. The remaining vessels supply the vast majority of the
    tuna being processed in American Samoa, and otherwise support
    the local economy there. The economy of American Samoa is
    overwhelmingly dependent on the tuna industry and the related
    service industries.
        Mr. Chairman, my written testimony highlights several
    important issues that it is simply not possible to address in
    this short oral statement. With the time available, I will
    focus on the economic impacts of the proposed Pacific Remote
    Islands Marine National Sanctuary, which, as currently
    envisioned, would close the entire U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
    around seven Pacific remote islands to commercial fishing.
        Recent information provided by NOAA makes abundantly clear
    that any assertion that the economic impact of the proposed
    sanctuary will be negligible or minimal is patently and
    demonstrably false. From 2020 to 2022, the purse seine fleet
    caught an average of 5,556 metric tons, approximately 10
    percent of the fleet's total catch, in the Pacific remote
    islands' EEZs, with an average landed value of $8.3 million.
    This represents over 25 million cans of tuna processed at the
    StarKist facility in American Samoa, with a retail value of
    approximately $25 million and approximately 250,000 person
    hours at the StarKist plant.
        Moreover, the proposed sanctuary is not an independent or
    isolated issue. Even if the assertion that the impact would be
    minimal is true, which it is clearly not, here again what is
    largely ignored is the cumulative effect of multiple actions,
    each justified in isolation on the basis of minimal impact. The
    analogy of death by a thousand cuts comes to mind, but the
    impact of the proposed sanctuary would not be a superficial
    cut. It would be a serious blow that would, in my view, pose an
    existential threat to the future of the American Samoa-based
    purse seine fleet and the tuna-dependent economy of American
    Samoa.
        My written testimony also highlights the importance of the
    U.S. purse seine fleet as a critical counterbalance to China's
    growing influence across the region, and I refer Committee
    members to that testimony for more on that subject.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the use of the Antiquities Act
    and Marine Sanctuaries Act to close vast areas of commercial
    fishing without scientific justification or rationale erodes
    the economic viability of our commercial fishing industry,
    jeopardizes domestic and regional food security, and opens the
    door for China to continue to increase its influence and
    presence across the Pacific to the detriment of U.S. economic
    and national security interests.
        The terrible irony, Mr. Chairman, is that even as our U.S.
    fleets are shrinking, the U.S. consumer is not eating less
    seafood. The United States simply imports that much more
    seafood from countries that have nothing close to the same
    management, regulatory enforcement, and environmental standards
    as those that apply to the United States' own domestic
    fisheries.
        Thank you for your consideration of these comments, and I
    am happy to answer any questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons-Fly follows:]
    Prepared Statement of William Gibbons-Fly, Executive Director, American
                              Tunaboat Association
        Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, distinguished members of
    the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this
    morning. I am William Gibbons-Fly, Executive Director of the American
    Tunaboat Association (ATA). ATA represents the owners and operators of
    the U.S. flag tuna purse seine vessels operating in the Pacific Ocean,
    the last true ``distant water fishing fleet'' operating under U.S.
    flag. ATA members are multi-generational, family-owned businesses with
    a long and storied history as an important part of the U.S. fishing
    industry. As the sole witness from the Pacific Ocean fishing industries
    and fleets, my testimony also reflects the views of the Hawaii Longline
    Association, and my understanding of the views of other Pacific
    fisheries interests including those based in both Hawaii and American
    Samoa.
        I am here today to testify to the significant adverse impact on the
    U.S. Pacific fishing fleets and to the economy of American Samoa
    resulting from the previous designation of Pacific Marine National
    Monuments under the Antiquities Act and the proposed creation of a
    Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary under National Marine
    Sanctuaries Act. Actions under these two pieces of legislation have
    been and are being used to bypass and override the rigorous, science-
    based, and participatory fisheries management system established by
    Congress over several decades. Moreover, these actions are being taken
    with little thought to the economic consequences to an important sector
    of the U.S. economy, the economies of our U.S. territories, domestic
    and regional food security, and yes, even U.S. national security.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States has the most robust and
    comprehensive fisheries management system anywhere in the world.
    Through the legislative framework established under the Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the eight Regional
    Fisheries Management Councils oversee an inclusive and science-based
    process with participation of officials from the Federal Government,
    State and Territorial governments, scientists and academics,
    economists, industry stakeholders, local communities, environmental
    advocacy groups and individuals, among others. The focus of these
    efforts is to ensure that U.S. fisheries are conducted in a responsible
    and sustainable manner, while mitigating impacts on non-target species,
    marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds and other marine life. To this
    end, our fisheries are governed not only by the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
    but by a series of strict regulatory mandates promulgated under the
    Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National
    Environmental Policy Act, among other pieces of legislation.
        And yet, what we are seeing is a disturbing trend to toss this
    entire, congressionally mandated system aside and close vast waters
    under the jurisdiction of the United States to commercial fishing with
    no scientific justification or rationale and without adequate
    consideration of the impacts on the fishing industry and local
    communities whose livelihoods are negatively affected through these
    actions.
        Much of this is intended to meet the Administration's stated of
    goal of protecting thirty percent of waters under U.S. jurisdiction by
    2030, or ``30 by 30.'' Thirty percent is itself an arbitrary number
    with no scientific basis, rationale, or demonstrable need. That issue
    aside, the ``30 by 30'' effort is being applied to an exceptionally
    disproportionate degree on fisheries and underserved communities in the
    Pacific Islands Region (Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Northern
    Marianas, and the Pacific Remote Islands). According to information
    provided by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council
    (see attached fact sheet), Marine Monuments currently cover 53 percent
    of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Pacific Islands
    Region; and further, 61 percent of the EEZ around the Hawaiian
    archipelago is currently closed to commercial fishing due to monument
    designation; all of this independent of the extensive infrastructure,
    science, and economic considerations established by Congress that have
    proved so successful in managing our nation's commercial fisheries.
        This severely disproportionate burden on U.S. Pacific Islands seems
    directly at odds with President Biden's focus on environmental equity
    and justice through multiple Executive Orders, in particular with
    respect to the needs of marginalized and underserved communities, such
    as the U.S. Pacific territories.
        With that introduction, I will review actions by past Presidents to
    establish a series of Pacific Marine National Monuments under the
    Antiquities Act, and then discuss the current proposal for the creation
    of Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary that would cover an
    area much greater than the existing marine national monument and, as
    currently envisioned, prohibit commercial fishing throughout the entire
    U.S. EEZs surrounding the Pacific Remote Islands of Wake Island,
    Johnson Atoll, Howland and Baker Islands, Kingman Reef and Palmyra
    Atoll, and Jarvis Island. As described later in this testimony, and
    contrary to the assertions of its proponents, this latter action, in
    conjunction with other parallel actions being undertaken by the
    Administration, would have a devastating impact on the American Samoa-
    based purse seine fleet and, as a direct consequence, on the tuna
    dependent economy of American Samoa itself.
    PACIFIC MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENTS

        There are four currently Marine National Monuments within the
    Pacific Islands Region: The Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
    in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), established in 2006 and
    expanded in August 2016; and the Marianas Trench, Pacific Remote
    Islands, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments, established in
    January 2009; with the Pacific Remote Islands being expanded in
    September 2014. In this testimony, I will focus on the monuments in the
    Northwest Hawaiian Islands and The Pacific Remote Islands, in the U.S.
    EEZ surrounding the islands previously described.
        The Northwest Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument
    (Papahanaumokuakea) was established in 2006 by President George W.
    Bush. The original boundaries of the monument extended approximately 50
    miles from the chain of islands comprising the NWHI archipelago from
    Nihoa Island to Kure Atoll. In 2016, President Obama significantly
    expanded the monument to include all waters within the U.S. EEZ
    surrounding the NWHI from 163 degrees West Longitude to the westernmost
    extent of the archipelago. With this expansion, the Northwest Hawaiian
    Islands Marine National Monument covers an area of 600,000 square
    miles; larger than Alaska and twice the size of Texas!
        The expanded monument resulted in a loss to the Hawaii-based
    longline fleet of fishing grounds that historically produced
    approximately 10 percent of the fleet's annual catch. To compensate for
    this loss of fishing grounds, the fleet has been forced to fish farther
    from home, on the high seas competing with highly subsidized foreign
    fleets, resulting in lower catch rates, greater costs, increasing
    safety risks for vessel crew, and higher fuel consumption thus
    increasing its carbon footprint.
        The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was established
    in 2009, also by President Bush. The initial designation of the
    monument included waters surrounding each of the Pacific Remote Islands
    out to approximately 50 nautical miles. These boundaries, although not
    insignificant in terms of fishing effort in the region, did not impact
    the operation of the tuna purse seine fleet between 50 nautical miles
    out to the 200 nautical mile boundary of the U.S. EEZ.
        However, in September 2014, President Obama expanded the area of
    the monument to include the entire U.S. EEZ around Wake Island, Johnson
    Atoll, Jarvis Island; leaving only the areas around Howland and Baker
    Islands, and Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll from 50 to 200 nautical
    miles available to the U.S. fleet. The loss of fishing access in Jarvis
    Island, in particular, was a significant economic loss to the American
    Samoa-based purse seine fleet, as this has been the single richest
    fishing ground for the fleet within any U.S. EEZ.
        Within two years of the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands
    Marine National Monument, including the entire EEZ around Jarvis
    Island, one of the two tuna canneries operating in American Samoa at
    the time closed its doors for good, resulting in the loss of 800 jobs.
    A GAO Report published in 2020 (GAO 20-467) found that following the
    closure of the cannery in 2016, American Samoa's gross domestic product
    fell 5.8 percent in 2017, citing lower tuna exports as a principal
    cause.
        During the two years prior to the closing of the cannery, the
    cannery operators made numerous petitions to the Federal government
    regarding the consequences of the fisheries closures for the economy of
    American Samoa, and engaged in multiple efforts to attain some relief
    for American Samoa from the increasingly restrictive environment in
    which the U.S. fleet was compelled to operate, all to no avail.
        Moreover, Jarvis Island shares an extensive maritime boundary with
    the Republic of Kiribati. Excluded from the U.S. EEZ around Jarvis
    Island, U.S. vessels must pay $13,000 per vessel per day for access to
    the EEZ of Kiribati, on the other side of an imaginary line in the
    ocean. Kiribati also licenses and charters approximately 15 large
    Chinese purse seine vessels (more than the entire remaining U.S. purse
    seine fleet) that fish freely just across the same line from the U.S.
    EEZ around Jarvis Island.
        In addition, the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands monument
    fully closed the U.S. EEZ around Johnson Atoll, an area within which
    the Hawaii-based longline fleet historically averaged approximately 12
    percent of its catch. When added to the 10 percent loss from the
    Northwest Hawaiian Islands, the cumulative loss to the Hawaii longline
    fleet was an area accounting for approximately 22 percent of is
    historical catch.
        The Rose Atoll monument reduced fishing grounds in the U.S. EEZ
    around American Samoa resulting in an estimated annual loss to the
    American Samoa longline fleet of $237,000, according to information
    provided by the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council.
        Because these monuments are established under the Antiquities Act,
    the process is exempt not only from the requirements of U.S. fishery
    management legislation, but also from the requirement to use the best
    available scientific evidence, as well as the requirements of the
    Administrative Procedures Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,
    and other legislation, all of which are established by Congress to
    ensure fair, transparent, and science-based decision making for the
    management of the nation's fisheries and the effective conservation of
    living marine resources. It pains me to think what Senators Warren
    Magnuson, Ted Stevens, Daniel Inouye, Congressman Don Young, and other
    ardent supporters of our nation's sustainable, responsible, and
    science-based commercial fisheries, would think of such a development.
        Beyond these domestic actions, a new treaty recently adopted at the
    United Nations raises the prospect of large-scale marine protected
    areas being established for vast areas of the high seas, thus
    potentially further restricting access by U.S. fleets to important
    fishing grounds. In addition to the direct effects described above, it
    is the cumulative effects of this series of both domestic and
    international actions, each justified in isolation on the basis of
    minimal or negligible impact, that are largely ignored. And yet they
    serve collectively to further undermine and erode the viability of the
    U.S. fishing industry, not just in the Pacific Islands Region, but
    across the nation.
    PROPOSED PACIFIC REMOTE ISLAND NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

        I will now address the potential impact of the current proposal to
    establish a Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary that, as
    currently envisioned, would close the entire U.S. EEZ around the seven
    Pacific Remote Islands to commercial fishing. On June 2, 2023, in
    response to a Federal Register Notice published by NOAA on April 18,
    ATA submitted comprehensive comments on the proposed sanctuary. Those
    comments, submitted with this testimony, made clear that ATA supports
    science-based conservation and management measures to conserve living
    marine resources, including the fragile, unique, and endemic nearshore
    marine resources and deep-sea habitats that the current monument and
    proposed marine sanctuary are intended to protect. However, ATA is
    extremely concerned about any proposal that would further restrict or
    prohibit the well managed and highly sustainable commercial fishing in
    the remaining areas of the U.S. EEZ that are not already closed under
    the existing marine national monument.
        This is important, Mr. Chairman, because our industry is struggling
    to survive, and with it, so is the tuna dependent economy of American
    Samoa. In the past three years, the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet has
    been reduced from 34 vessels to just 13 vessels operating today. The
    remaining vessels supply the vast majority of the tuna being processed
    in American Samoa and otherwise support the local economy there by
    utilizing a range of goods and services provided by local businesses.
    The economy of American Samoa is overwhelmingly dependent on the tuna
    industry and the related service industries that support both the
    StarKist tuna processing facility and the vessels that are based there.
        ATA's June 2 comments addressed not only the economic impacts of
    the proposed sanctuary, but the lack of scientific justification for
    large open ocean ecosystems to conserve highly migratory species; the
    complete lack of interaction between the purse seine fishery and near-
    shore and deep-sea habitats; how the diminishing U.S. purse seine fleet
    opens the door for China to expand its influence across the region;
    broader conservation initiatives being undertaken by the fleet; and
    other issues.
        In this testimony, I will focus primarily on the economic impact of
    the proposed sanctuary, in particular with respect to information that
    was not available to us at the time ATA submitted comments on June 2 of
    this year. It is also apparent that this information was not available
    to or considered by the Administration when it proposed closing the
    entire area of the sanctuary to commercial fishing.
        That information, provided by NOAA's own Pacific Islands Fishery
    Science Center, makes clear that assertions that the economic impact of
    the proposed sanctuary will be ``negligible'' or ``minimal'' are
    patently and demonstrably false. From 2020-2022, the purse seine fleet
    caught an average of 5,556 metric tons (mt), approximately 10 percent
    of the fleet's total catch, in the Pacific Remote Islands EEZs with an
    average landed value of $8.31 million dollars. Historically, 84 percent
    of the catch caught in these areas has been landed in American Samoa;
    for some years it has reached 100 percent. For the U.S. market, one
    metric ton of tuna yields approximately 113 cartons of 48 cans of tuna.
    Thus, 84 percent of the average annual catches represents over 25
    million cans of tuna processed at the StarKist facility in American
    Samoa with a retail value of approximately $25 million. This quantity
    of fish reportedly equates to approximately 250,000 person-hours at the
    StarKist plant.
        Moreover, Mr. Chairman, it is also important to understand that the
    proposed sanctuary is not an independent or isolated issue, but is
    happening in parallel with other actions, both current and proposed,
    that create an increasingly restrictive operating environment for the
    American Samoa-based purse seiner fleet. In particular, under a
    separate action, the Administration is seeking to divide what is
    currently a combined level of fishing effort by the U.S. fleet, for the
    high seas and the U.S. EEZ, into two separate limits that would have
    further significant impacts on the viability of the fleet.
        To explain further, the treaty-based organization that manages the
    international fisheries throughout the Central and Western Pacific
    establishes a limit for the U.S. purse seine fleet of 1,270 fishing
    days on the high seas, and a limit of 558 days for the U.S. EEZ.
    Historically, the United States has implemented these two limits as a
    single combined limit of 1,828 fishing days, which can be fished by the
    fleet either on the high seas or in the U.S. EEZ. Because some other
    countries with obvious financial self-interest have complained about
    this, the Administration is now proposing to split the single combined
    limit into two separate limits for the high seas and EEZ. (It is
    important to note that these complaints have no scientific or
    conservation basis, they are simply an effort to reduce the U.S.
    fleet's access to the high seas, so that vessels must purchase access
    to fish elsewhere.)
        In combination, these actions would have the perverse effect of
    taking 558 fishing days currently available to be fished on the high
    seas, and requiring that they be fished only in the U.S. EEZ, while at
    the same time closing the entirety of the EEZ to commercial fishing.
    Thus, these fishing days would simply disappear, and the fleet will
    lose nearly one third of the fishing days available to it, with the
    only alternative being to purchase access to fish in the waters under
    the jurisdiction of the Pacific Island States at a cost of up to
    $13,000 dollars per vessel per day.
        Further, the closure of the remaining portions of the U.S. EEZ and
    the complete loss of 558 fishing days could mean that vessels have
    little option but to shift operations to the eastern Pacific Ocean,
    significantly further away from American Samoa, where such limits do
    not apply. Less of this fish would then be landed back in American
    Samoa, further constraining the supply of fish to the cannery there.
    Canneries in Mexico and Ecuador would be the beneficiaries, to the
    detriment of U.S. interests.
        In my view, this illogical series of events poses an existential
    threat to the future of the American Samoa-based tuna purse seine
    fleet, with a direct and consequential impact on the tuna dependent
    economy of American Samoa.
    COUNTERBALANCE TO CHINA

        In addition, Mr. Chairman, maintaining an active and economically
    viable U.S. tuna purse seine fleet operating in the strategically
    important Central Pacific Ocean is a critical counterbalance to China's
    growing influence across the region. China has focused strategically on
    developing direct commercial ties with many Pacific Island States
    through investments in the fisheries sector, both through the
    activities of its vessels as well as shoreside investments. China
    understands that building commercial and industry ties is the single
    most important vector for political and economic engagement with the
    strategically located Pacific Island States.
        The U.S. tuna purse seine fleet operates across large areas of the
    Pacific Ocean under a treaty between the United States and the Pacific
    Island States of the region. The treaty is not only an access agreement
    but has become an increasingly important vector for U.S. strategic
    engagement with the Pacific Island States on a range of issues of
    common interest, including to combat illegal fishing, address impacts
    of climate changes, support enhanced fisheries management, and others.
    Further reduction in the U.S. purse seine fleet will continue to erode
    U.S. influence in the region and leave the door open for China's
    influence to continue to grow, to the determent of regional stability,
    responsible governance, and strategic engagement with the Pacific
    Island States.
        As a result, the American Samoa-based tuna purse seine fleet
    operating in the region contributes not only to the United States
    economy and, especially the American Samoa economy, but to regional
    food security, national security, and other vital national interests.
    The fleet also operates as several additional sets of ``eyes and ears''
    across vast reaches of the Pacific Ocean.
    SCIENCE AND CONSERVATION

        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I will touch briefly on two additional
    issues raised in ATA's June 2 comments to NOAA on the proposed
    sanctuary.

        The Nominating Document for the sanctuary makes a strong case for
    the protection of resources such as the ``nearshore environment''
    including ``pristine coral reefs,'' ``reef fish populations,'' ``sea
    bird nesting colonies,'' as well as ``open ocean seamounts,'' ``deep-
    sea corals,'' and the ``important spawning grounds and biodiversity
    hotspots'' provided by many seamounts in the U.S. EEZ.

        In this regard, the Nominating Document itself states clearly:

            ``Specifically, protection of the deep-water ecosystems, reefs,
            and open-ocean seamounts of the proposed [sanctuary] is likely
            the most important part of this nomination.''

        The existing commercial fisheries in the region occur offshore in
    the open ocean (at least 50 NM from land) and have no interaction with
    or impact on the resources in the nearshore environment, coral reefs,
    oceanic seamounts, or other ecosystems and habitats needing protection.
    The fisheries are highly regulated and monitored to ensure strict
    adherence to requirements and procedures to minimize interactions with
    marine mammals, sharks, rays, sea turtles, sea birds, and other marine
    fauna.

        Moreover, although the Nomination Document makes a strong case for
    additional protection for fragile nearshore and deep-sea habitats, the
    case for protecting highly migratory species in the open ocean does not
    hold up. At least two recent papers by highly respected scientific
    authorities (Hilborn, et al., 2022, and Hampton, et al., 2023) conclude
    that large, open ocean marine protected areas (MPAs) have little
    tangible benefit for the resources being managed. I refer you to ATA's
    attached June 2 written comments to NOAA for further elaboration on
    this point.
    SUMMARY

        In summary, Mr. Chairman, the use of the Antiquities Act and the
    Marine Sanctuaries Act to override our rigorous fisheries management
    regime established by Congress, and to close vast areas of waters under
    U.S. jurisdiction to commercial fishing without scientific
    justification or rationale, erodes the economic viability or our
    commercial fishing industry, jeopardizes domestic and regional food
    security, and in the Pacific Ocean, opens the door for China to
    continue to increase its influence and presence across the region, to
    the detriment of U.S. interests.
        In particular, a prohibition of commercial fishing for highly
    migratory species like tuna throughout any Pacific Remote Islands
    marine sanctuary, in combination with other current and pending
    actions, would further jeopardize the viability of the American Samoa-
    based purse seine fleet and the tuna dependent economy of American
    Samoa, while yielding no discernable conservation benefit for the
    living marine resources in the open ocean from fifty to two hundred
    miles offshore.
        The terrible irony, Mr. Chairman, is that, despite the reduction in
    the size of a number of U.S. fleets, including the U.S. flag tuna purse
    seine fleet, the U.S. consumer is not eating less seafood. For every
    U.S. vessel owner that decides it is no longer possible to swim against
    this tide and leaves the business, the United States simply imports
    that much more seafood from countries that have nothing close to the
    same management, regulatory, enforcement, and environmental standards
    as those that apply to the United States' own domestic fisheries. Thus,
    such efforts directed at ``conservation,'' can have precisely the
    opposite effect of what is intended.
        Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify and for your
    consideration of these comments.

    Attachments

    ATA's June 2, 2023, comments to NOAA on the proposed Pacific Remote
    Islands National Marine Sanctuary

    Fact Sheet on the ``Impacts of Marine National Monument Fishing
    Prohibitions on US Fisheries Managed under the Western Pacific Regional
    Fishery Management Council''

                                     *****

                                  ATTACHMENTS

                         American Tunaboat Association

                                 San Diego, CA

                                                       June 2, 2023

    Mr. John Armor, Director
    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
    National Ocean Service
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Silver Spring, MD 20910

    Re: Comments from the American Tunaboat Association on the Proposed
            Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary

        Dear Mr. Armor:

        The following comments are provided on behalf of the American
    Tunaboat Association (ATA) in response to Federal Register notice
    ``NOAA-NOS-2023-0052,'' regarding the ``Notice of intent to prepare a
    draft environmental impact statement'' for the establishment of a
    National Marine Sanctuary in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
    surrounding the Pacific Remote Islands of Wake Atoll, Johnson Atoll,
    Howland and Baker Islands, Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll, and Jarvis
    Island.
        ATA is an industry association representing the owners and
    operators of the U.S. flag tuna purse seine fleet based in American
    Samoa. ATA supports science-based conservation and management measures
    to conserve living marine resources, including the fragile, unique, and
    endemic nearshore marine resources and deep-sea habitats that the
    current monuments and proposed marine sanctuary are intended to
    protect. However, ATA is extremely concerned about any proposal that
    would further limit or prohibit commercial fishing in the remaining
    areas of the U.S. EEZ that are not already closed under the existing
    Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM).
        ATA understands that the designation of a National Marine Sanctuary
    does not, in and of itself, mean a prohibition on commercial fishing.
    In fact, it is our understanding that commercial fishing in sanctuaries
    is not exceptional but prevalent, with appropriate safeguards in place
    to ensure such activity does not undermine the goals of the sanctuary
    itself. As a result, and for the reasons outlined below, ATA urges NOAA
    to establish a management plan for any Pacific Remote Islands sanctuary
    that does not further restrict commercial fishing in areas where such
    activity is not already prohibited.
    Impacts to Industry and to American Samoa are not Negligible

        The argument that the impact of any proposal to ban commercial
    fishing would be negligible is simply false. This proposed action is
    not happening in isolation, but is just one of a series of past and
    proposed future actions, the cumulative effects of which pose an
    existential threat to the future of the American Samoa-based tuna purse
    seine fleet and, as a result, a real and severe threat to the economy
    of American Samoa.
        In the past three years, the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet has been
    reduced from 34 vessels to just 13 vessels operating today. The
    remaining vessels are based in American Samoa and support the local
    economy by delivering tuna to the StarKist facility there, the largest
    private sector employer in the territory, and by utilizing a range of
    goods and services provided by local businesses. The economy of
    American Samoa is overwhelmingly dependent on the tuna industry and the
    related service industries that support both the StarKist facility and
    the vessels based there. The future of the U.S. purse seine fleet and
    the future of American Samoa are inextricably and undeniably linked.
        To grasp the potential impact of any proposal, it is important to
    understand the full range of past, current, and proposed actions
    affecting the American Samoa-based fleet. In 2008, President Bush
    created the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, closing
    waters of the seven Pacific Remote Islands to commercial fishing out to
    50 NM. In 2014, President Obama expanded that Monument to include the
    entire U.S. EEZ around Wake Island, Johnson Atoll, and Jarvis Island.
    The loss of fishing opportunities in Jarvis Island, in particular,
    dealt a significant blow to the industry, as the EEZ around Jarvis
    Island was among the richest traditional fishing grounds for the
    American Samoa-based fleet. Within two years of this action, one of the
    two canneries that operated in American Samoa at the time closed for
    good.
        The current proposal would further expand the fisheries closures to
    include the entire U.S. EEZ around the remaining islands, shutting the
    U.S. fleet entirely out of waters under U.S. jurisdiction in these
    areas. Each of these actions, including the current proposal, has been
    advanced using the argument that the impact on the U.S. fishing
    industry is negligible. However, the cumulative effect of these and
    other actions has had a significant adverse impact on the American
    Samoa-based purse seine fleet.
        As a prime example of this, the Administration, under a separate
    action, is seeking to divide what is currently a combined level of
    fishing effort by the U.S. fleet, for the high seas and the U.S. EEZ,
    into two separate limits that would have further significant impacts on
    the viability of the fleet. To explain further, the United States is a
    member of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC),
    a treaty-based organization that manages the international fisheries
    throughout the region. The WCPFC conservation measure for tropical
    tunas establishes a limit for the U.S. purse seine fleet of 1,270
    fishing days on the high seas, and a limit of 558 days for the U.S.
    EEZ. Historically, the United States has implemented these two limits
    as a single combined limit of 1,828 fishing days, which can be fished
    by the fleet either on the high seas or in the U.S. EEZ. Because some
    WCPFC members have complained about this, the Administration is now
    proposing to split the single combined limit into two separate limits.
    (It is important to note that the objections of certain WCPFC members
    have no scientific or conservation rationale; they simply want to limit
    the fishing days available to the U.S. fleet, thus forcing the fleet to
    pay exorbitant fees to fish in waters under their jurisdiction.)
        In combination, these actions would have the effect of taking 558
    fishing days and requiring that they only be fished in the U.S. EEZ,
    while simultaneously closing the entirety of the EEZ to fishing. This
    illogical series of events would be a devasting blow to the fleet by
    any measure.
        Statements pointing to the current level of fishing effort in the
    U.S. EEZ miss the point entirely. First, the level of effort reflects
    the fact that most of the EEZ is already closed to fishing. However,
    under the split quotas for the high seas and U.S. EEZ, vessels fishing
    in the area will have to utilize the days in the U.S. EEZ or pay up to
    $13,000 per day to fish in waters under the jurisdiction of certain
    Pacific Island States. Ironically, some of these waters are immediately
    adjacent to the U.S. EEZ that is or would be closed to the U.S. fleet.
        Under a worst-case scenario, if the fleet had to pay for $13,000
    per day for 558 fishing days no longer available, either on the high
    seas or in the U.S. EEZ, the total cost would be over $7.2 million
    dollars. Even at the current ``low'' level of fishing effort, 143 days
    as recently as 2020, the loss to the fleet would be $1.9 million
    dollars. Anyone arguing that impacts within this range would be
    ``negligible'' has never tried to a run business that historically
    operates at razor thin margins.
        Further, the closure of the remaining portions of the U.S. EEZ and
    the complete loss of 558 fishing days would mean the fleet would have
    little option but to shift operations to the east, significantly
    further away from American Samoa, into the area governed by the Inter-
    American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) where such limits do not
    apply. Less of this fish would then be landed back in American Samoa,
    further constraining the supply of fish to the cannery there. Canneries
    in Mexico and Ecuador would be the beneficiaries, to the detriment of
    U.S. interests.
    Fishing Prohibition is Unnecessary to Protect Fragile Ecosystems

        The Nominating Document makes a strong case for protection of
    resources such as the ``nearshore environment'' including ``pristine
    coral reefs,'' ``reef fish populations,'' ``sea bird nesting
    colonies,'' as well as ``open ocean seamounts,'' ``deep-sea corals,''
    and the ``important spawning grounds and biodiversity hotspots''
    provided by many seamounts in the U.S. EEZ.
        In this regard, the Nominating Document itself states clearly:

            ``Specifically, protection of the deep-water ecosystems, reefs,
            and open-ocean seamounts of the proposed [sanctuary] is likely
            the most important part of this nomination.''

        The existing commercial fisheries in the region occur offshore in
    the open ocean (at least 50 NM from land) and have no interaction with
    or impact on the resources in the nearshore environment, coral reefs,
    oceanic seamounts, or other ecosystems and habitats needing protection.
    The fisheries are highly regulated and monitored to ensure strict
    adherence to requirements and procedures to minimize interactions with
    marine mammals, sharks, rays, sea turtles, sea birds, and other marine
    fauna.
    Current Boundaries are the Result of a 2014 Compromise that must be
            Respected

        When President Obama sought in 2014 to expand the boundaries of the
    Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, the original proposal
    was to include all of the waters of the U.S. EEZ, in the same way as
    the current proposal. Representatives of the fishing industry and the
    Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council met at the White House
    with then Chief of Staff John Podesta to voice many of the concerns
    expressed here and by other industry sectors with respect to the
    current proposal. The result of that discussion was a compromise that
    provided for the expansion of the monument to include the entire EEZ
    around Wake Island, Johnson Atoll, and Jarvis Island, while leaving the
    previous boundaries intact around the remaining islands.
        As noted previously, the loss of Jarvis Island, in particular, was
    a huge blow to the purse seine fishery, as it lies within the
    archipelago of the Line Islands, among the richest tuna fishing grounds
    in the Pacific. The EEZ around Jarvis Island is immediately adjacent to
    the EEZ of the Republic of Kiribati, where U.S. vessels must pay
    $13,000 per day for access. Kiribati also provides access to other
    fleets, including from China, Korea, Taiwan, and elsewhere. These
    fleets operate at nothing close to the level of regulatory oversight
    and enforcement of both national and international requirements that
    apply to the U.S. fleet.
        The proponents of the Sanctuary are now seeking to overturn that
    compromise by once again seeking to ban all commercial fishing within
    the U.S. EEZ. We urge the Administration to honor in good faith the
    agreement reached in 2014.
    The Science does not Support Large Scale Open Ocean MPAs

        Although the Nomination Document makes a strong case for additional
    protection for nearshore habitats, coral reefs, oceanic seamounts,
    deep-sea corals, and other fragile habitats, the case for highly
    migratory species in the open ocean does not hold up. At least two
    recent papers by highly respected scientific authorities (Hilborn, et
    al., 2022, and Hampton, et al., 2023) conclude that large, open ocean
    marine protected areas (MPAs) have little tangible benefit for the
    resources being managed.

        A supplementary paper, from the school of fisheries at the
    University of Washington, cites the clear benefits from inshore and
    nearshore MPAs, but goes on to say,

            ``Large, open ocean MPAs are designed to protect huge swaths of
            open ocean, but are a poor choice for efficiently and
            effectively managing fisheries. . . . From a fishery management
            perspective, [such MPAs] are unnecessary: already, most tuna
            and billfish stocks are sustainably managed by international
            organizations called regional fishery management organizations
            (RFMOs) and a large majority of tuna and billfish stocks are
            already biologically sustainable.''

        Among the highly migratory fish stocks known to be healthy and
    fished on a sustainable basis are all of the stocks of tuna fished by
    the American Samoa-based tuna purse seine fleet.

        The same paper notes:

            ``Because of their size and scale, [large, open ocean MPAs]
            garner lots of splashy headlines and notoriety for the
            conservation organizations and politicians who implement
            them,''

            but they ``do nothing to alleviate'' the ``most pressing
            threats to biodiversity in the oceans'' such as ``climate
            change, ocean acidification, and land-based pollutants.''

        And finally, the paper notes that, by reducing the amount of fish
    caught, which has a much lower carbon footprint than land-based food
    sources, large, open ocean--

            ``. . . MPAs may actually contribute to climate change and
            ocean acidification.''

        Similarly, Hampton, et al, 2023 found, contrary to other studies
    using flawed methodology, that the establishment of the Phoenix Islands
    Protected Area (PIPA) in Kiribati, touted as the world's largest MPA at
    the time it was established, had no measurable benefit for the tuna
    stocks in the region. (Kiribati has since abolished the PIPA and has
    allowed commercial fishing to again take place in much of this area,
    subject to specific limits and conditions.)

        One analysis of the paper notes:

            ``The study . . . is the first quantitative assessment of a no-
            take marine protected area (MPA) on tropical tuna and has
            implications for many of the world's largest MPAs.''

        And further, that:

            ``The authors of Hampton et al. 2023 are a veritable Who's Who
            of the Pacific tuna research community. Several of the
            researchers work for the Pacific Community (SPC), an
            intergovernmental organization of 27 Pacific countries and
            territories tasked with managing collective resources. They are
            responsible for performing stock assessments on each Pacific
            tuna species--no other organization has a better grasp of the
            state of Pacific tuna than they do. Authors also include a
            member of Kiribati's Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources
            Development.''
    Another Step in the United States Ceding the Pacific to China

        The activities of the American Samoa-based fleet provide a critical
    counterbalance to China's growing influence across the region. China
    has focused strategically on developing direct commercial ties with
    several Pacific Island States through investments in the fisheries
    sector, both through the activities of its vessels as well as shoreside
    investments. China understands that building commercial and industry
    ties is the single most important vector for political and economic
    engagement. As a result, maintaining a viable American Samoa-based
    purse seine fleet operating in the Pacific Ocean contributes not only
    to the United States and American Samoa economy, but to regional food
    security, national security, and other vital national interests. The
    fleet also operates as several additional sets of ``eyes and ears''
    across vast reaches of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.
        And yet, the American Samoa-based fleet faces a number of
    challenges that risk further significant reductions in the number of
    vessels operating in the region. The fleet operates on an increasingly
    uneven playing field with respect to its international competitors, in
    particular China. China and other flag states are able to exempt their
    vessels from a range of international regulatory requirements by
    reflagging or entering into charter arrangements with Pacific Island
    States who themselves are exempt from these requirements. And yet,
    although the underlying Convention requires that ``Participating
    Territories'' such as American Samoa be afforded the same treatment as
    the Pacific Island States, the America Samoa-based fleet is not
    afforded the same treatment, creating a vastly disproportionate burden
    on the American Samoa economy.
        It is often said, because it is undeniably true, that fisheries are
    as central to the politics of the Pacific as oil is to the Middle East.
    Unless the United States is prepared to withdraw completely from
    engagement with the Pacific Island States on these strategically
    important fisheries issues, thus contributing to China's growing
    dominance in the Pacific, these trends affecting the American Samoa-
    based fleet must be addressed and reversed, and soon.
    ATA Vessels are Supporting a Number of Conservation Efforts

        ATA member vessels are currently engaged in range of activities to
    address potential impacts of fishing activity on the marine
    environment. First, in a joint project with the International Seafood
    Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), ATA vessels are working develop new
    gear and techniques to reduce the impacts on shark and rays caught
    incidental to fishing operations. This includes testing protype sorting
    grids to allow large animals to be returned to the water without harm;
    tagging animals to better determine their post-release survival rates
    and migratory patterns; and genetic sampling to assist with species
    identification, stock structure and population dynamics.
        In a second project, jointly with ISSF and the Secretariat of the
    Pacific Community (SPC), ATA vessels are testing designs for
    biodegradable fish aggregating devices (FADs) to reduce the impacts of
    FADs that are lost and persist in the marine environment. Testing at
    sea by experienced fishing crews is critical to enhancing and improving
    the design of these devices to ensure they meet their intended purpose.
        Finally, ATA vessels are working with The Nature Conservancy on a
    project to track FADs that drift into the nearshore environment around
    Palmyra Atoll so that they can be removed by TNC participants. The
    success of this project has recently resulted in its expansion to
    include fishing fleets of other countries, and the potential expansion
    into waters around American Samoa and waters under the jurisdiction of
    other Pacific Island States.
    Summary

        A prohibition of commercial fishing throughout any Pacific Remote
    Islands marine sanctuary, in combination with other current and pending
    actions, would further undermine the viability of the American Samoa-
    based purse seine fleet and the tuna dependent economy of American
    Samoa, while yielding little to no conservation benefit for the living
    marine resources in the open ocean from fifty to two hundred miles
    offshore. Fish not caught within the U.S. EEZ will eventually move to
    the high seas where they will be caught by vessels from China, Taiwan,
    Korea and other flag States and entities. Thus, the benefits of the
    sacrifice by U.S. fleet will accrue to these other parties, at the
    expense of U.S. interests.
        Therefore, as stated at the outset, ATA urges NOAA to establish a
    management plan for any Pacific Remote Islands sanctuary that does not
    further restrict commercial fishing in areas where such activity is not
    already prohibited. We welcome an opportunity to participate in the
    discussions and deliberations as the process for establishing any
    marine sanctuary moves forward.
        Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

                Sincerely,

                                           William Gibbons-Fly,
                                                     Executive Director

                                     ______

            IMPACTS OF MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT FISHING PROHIBITIONS

      ON US FISHERIES MANAGED UNDER THE WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY
                               MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

     Pacific Marine Monuments Comprise 26% (892,241 square nautical miles)
                                       of

      Federal U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone \1\ and 90% of the America the
                         Beautiful `30 by 30' Goal \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ All Marine National Monuments have been designated by
    Presidential Proclamations issued under the Antiquities Act of 1906.
    The United States has the second largest EEZ at more than 4.3 million
    square miles.
        \2\ U.S. Department of Interior Report. Conserving and Restoring
    America The Beautiful, 2021
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Marine Monuments Comprise 53% of the US EEZ in the US Pacific Islands
                                   Region \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \3\ The US Pacific Islands region includes: Hawaii, American Samoa,
    Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Remote Island Areas (Wake,
    Johnston, Palmyra, Howland, Baker, Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61% of the US EEZ Around the Hawaii Archipelago is Closed to Commercial
                      Fishing due to Monument Designation

    IMPACTS

         Monument regulations prohibit commercial fishing for key
                US tuna fisheries (US purse seine fleet, Hawaii longline,
                American Samoa longline)

              o   NWHI monument expansion area produced on
            average around 10% of the catch harvested by the Hawaii
            longline fishery

              o   PRIA monument eliminated fishing grounds for
            the Hawaii longline fishery that comprised over 12% of the
            fishery's landings

              o   PRIA monument closed fishing grounds to US
            purse seine that historically delivered tuna local canneries in
            American Samoa

                         One of American Samoa's two canneries
                    ceased operations in December 2016 as a result of
                    reduced supply of US caught tuna

                         5,500 jobs in American Samoa supported by
                    fishing, of a workforce of 18,000

              o   Rose Atoll monument reduced fishing grounds in
            US waters around American Samoa, resulting in annual loss of
            $237,000 of fish to the American Samoa longline fleet

         Displaced fishing increases trip costs and poses greater
                safety at sea risks

         Disproportionate burden of a `30 by 30' goal carried by
                underserved Pacific Island communities

    MONUMENT FISHING PROHIBITIONS WEAKEN U.S. FISHERIES, INCREASE IMPORTS
            AND JEOPOARDIZE 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

              o   Longline vessels from China, Taiwan, Korea,
            and Japan are regularly observed fishing the border of the US
            EEZ around the Hawaii Archipelago and the US Pacific Remote
            Islands.

         China continues to build up its longline fleet in the
                WCPO, which was at around 100 vessels in 2007 to now over
                480 longline vessels, catching approximately 45,000 mt of
                tuna annually

              o   In comparison, the Hawaii longline fishery
            consists of 145 vessels catching nearly 8,000 mt of tuna

         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

         Monuments weaken key US tuna fisheries which in turn
                impacts national food security

              o   90% of seafood consumed in the US is imported
            from foreign sources, of which 30% is estimated to be from
            Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported fisheries.

         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

         The United States is losing influence in the international
                fisheries management organizations such as the Western and
                Central Pacific Commission due weakened US fisheries and
                impacts exacerbated with the loss of US fishing grounds as
                result of monument designations.

    MONUMENT FISHING REGULATIONS CAUSE REGULATORY DUPLICATION AND LACK
            CONSERVATION BENEFITS

         NWHI monument was an overlay of 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 static marine protected
                areas DO NOT provide more effective conservation benefits
                to marine resources, especially for highly mobile species
                4,5 such as tunas, billfish and sharks versus
                other fishery management tools \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Hampton J., et al. 2023. Limited conservation efficacy of
    large-scale marine protected areas for Pacific skipjack and bigeye
    tunas. Front. Mar. Sci. 9:1060943. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.1060943
        \5\ Gilman, E., et al. 2020. Ecological responses to blue water
    MPAs. PLoS ONE. 15. e0235129. 10.1371/journal.pone.0235129.
        \6\ Pons, M., et al. 2022. Trade-offs between bycatch and target
    catches in static versus dynamic fishery closures. Proceedings of the
    National Academy of Sciences, 119 (4).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON PROTECTING HIGH SEAS BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

         Legally binding framework, Intergovernmental Conference on
                Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction
                established in 2023

              o   UN Convention on Biological Diversity goal to
            conserve 30% of lands and waters by 2030

         Proponents are calling for Marine Protected Areas in 30%
                of the high seas, which if implemented in high seas areas
                fished by US fleets in the Pacific Ocean, in combination
                with Marine National Monument prohibitions, these hugely
                important fleets would be decimated and left with nowhere
                to fish

    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 nor is the
                requirement is to utilize the best scientific information
                available

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Gibbons-Fly
                Questions Submitted by Representative Radewagen

        Question 1. Are you familiar with the concept of the ``30 by 30''
    policy, and can you describe how that policy affects the current
    efforts by the Administration with respect to these sanctuaries and
    monuments?

        Answer. Yes, the concept of ``30 by 30'' refers to global efforts
    to ``protect'' 30 percent of the Earth's oceans by 2030. Many
    countries, including the United States under the Biden Administration,
    have adopted a similar goal at the national level. But very clearly, in
    the United States the ``30 by 30'' effort is being applied to an
    exceptionally disproportionate degree on fisheries and underserved
    communities in the Pacific Islands Region (Hawaii, American Samoa,
    Guam, Northern Marianas, and the Pacific Remote Islands). According to
    information provided by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
    Council, Marine Monuments currently cover 53 percent of the U.S. EEZ in
    the Pacific Islands Region; and further, 61 percent of the EEZ around
    the Hawaiian archipelago is currently closed to commercial fishing due
    to monument designation; all of this to the detriment of the U.S.
    commercial fishing industry and independent of the extensive
    infrastructure, science, and economic considerations established by
    Congress that have proved so successful in managing our nation's
    commercial fisheries.
        Moreover, this severely disproportionate burden on U.S. Pacific
    Islands seems directly at odds with President Biden's focus on
    environmental equity and justice through multiple Executive Orders, in
    particular with respect to the needs of marginalized and underserved
    communities, such as the U.S. Pacific territories.

        Question 2. While the administration is proposing the expansion of
    the PRIMNM, they are also proposing to amend the combined 1,800 fishing
    days allowed for fishing on both the high seas and the EEZ, to a
    bifurcated limit specified to a certain number of days allowed for EEZ
    fishing and a certain number of days allowed for high seas fishing.
    These rules appear to be in conflict, as the administration is telling
    fishers to only fish in the EEZ on certain days, then prohibiting
    fishing in the EEZ. How are fishers supposed to recoup these days meant
    to fish in the EEZ if they can't fish in the area due to monument
    expansion?

        Answer. To expand on the background above, under the Western and
    Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), the U.S. tuna purse fleet
    is allocated 1,270 days on the high seas and 558 days in the U.S. EEZ.
    Historically, the United States has implemented these quotas as a
    combined limit of 1,828 days, that could be fished either on the high
    seas or in the U.S. EEZ. This is because NOAA recognized that the
    primary conservation objective is to limit the total level of effort,
    and that whether the effort occurred on the high seas or in the U.S.
    EEZ was irrelevant from a scientific or conservation perspective.
        Recently, some WCPFC member have complained about this, not because
    of any conservation concern, but simply because they want to limit U.S.
    access to the high seas and force the U.S. fleet to pay exorbitant
    prices, up to $13,000 per vessel per day, to fish in waters under their
    jurisdiction. Inexplicably, NOAA has decided to reverse its long-
    standing policy and has proposed to separate these two allocations in
    1,270 days on the high seas, and 558 days that could only be fished in
    the U.S. EEZ.
        At the same time, under the Sanctuary proposal, the Administration
    is proposing to close the remainder of the U.S. EEZ to fishing by the
    purse seine fleet! The effect of these two actions, in combination,
    would be that the U.S. fleet would instantly lose almost one third of
    the days currently available to it on the high seas and in the U.S.
    EEZ. The only option for the fleet continuing to operate in the WCPFC
    area will be to pay for access to the EEZ of the Pacific Island States
    (again, up to $13,000 per vessel per day). As stated in my written
    testimony, this combination of events poses a serious and possible
    existential threat to the American Samoa-based tuna purse seine fleet.

        Question 3. Can you expand on the differences between countries
    regarding enforcement of environmental and IUU fishing standards, and
    how the closure of fishing in the U.S. EEZ would impact adherence to
    environmental standards in the industry?

        Answer. No other country with fishing fleets operating in the
    Pacific Ocean applies the same rigorous standards of management,
    monitoring, enforcement, and environmental protection as the United
    States does with respect to U.S. flag vessels. All of the factors
    contributing to the reduced size of the U.S. fleet, including the loss
    of fishing grounds are the PRIAs, simply open the door for China and
    other fleets to fill the space formerly occupied by the U.S. fleet.
    China's record for flaunting rules, engaging in IUU fishing, and
    undermining good governance in developing States is well documented.
    Other flag States that fail to enforce the rules with respect to their
    vessels simply exacerbate these issues.

        Question 4. How have previous marine monument expansions impacted
    U.S.-based fishing in the past in terms of the number of U.S.-flagged
    vessels?

        Answer. The reduction in the size of the U.S. fleet is the result
    of a number of complex factors including the loss of fishing
    opportunities, an increasingly rigorous regulatory environment, and
    increased foreign competition under increasingly lop-sided and
    disadvantageous conditions. Although quantifying the relative
    contribution of these individual factors to the reduction of the U.S.
    fleet is difficult, the loss of access to key fishing areas is
    certainly a significant contributing factor.

        Question 5. As previously mentioned, American Samoa's economy is
    extremely reliant upon the ability of fishers to operate in the
    proposed monument expansion area and is already contending with the
    decline of the American Samoa-based fleet due to other burdensome
    regulations decreasing the island's competitiveness. How will closure
    of this fishery as a result of monument expansion impact the American
    Samoa-based fleet and its operations?

        Answer. As explained further in response to questions from Mr.
    Case, for every fishing trip, the single largest variable cost is fuel,
    up to and recently exceeding one-half million U.S. dollars per trip.
    Vessels will seek to catch and land fish, while maximizing the
    efficient use of fuel.
        When vessels are able to operate in areas closer to American Samoa,
    including the high seas and U.S. EEZs around the PRIAs, they will
    return to American Samoa to offload their catch. Conversely, if vessels
    are further pushed out of these areas, either by losing high seas
    access or access to the PRIAs, landings in American Samoa will also be
    reduced. Maintaining the greatest access possible by the U.S. fleet to
    these closer areas is critical to ensuring a steady and sufficient
    supply of fish to support the cannery operation in American Samoa.

                   Questions Submitted by Representative Case

        Question 1. In your testimony you shared that there are currently
    13 vessels operating today in the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet.

        1a) Of the 13 vessels operating today, how many are owned by
    residents of American Samoa? How many are owned by individuals or
    corporations that are based outside of American Samoa? Are there any
    owners who own multiple vessels in the fleet?

        Answer. The 13 U.S. flagged tuna purse seine vessels are owned by
    U.S. companies with headquarters in California, Nevada, Washington
    state, and Florida. One entity owns and operates six vessels, another
    owns and operates two vessels, and the rest are single vessel
    operators.
        However, 12 of the 13 vessels are based in American Samoa, not only
    supplying the cannery there, but supporting the local economy through
    the use of an extensive array of support services for fuel, supplies,
    maintenance, net repair, housing, etc. All 12 of these vessels have now
    received a tuna landing license issued by the Government of American
    Samoa under a recent law intended to document what is truly an American
    Samoa-based purse seine fleet. Although the landing license is a new
    development, most of these vessels have been based in and delivering to
    American Samoa for years, some for as long as 40 years over multiple
    generations for some family-owned vessels.

        1b) Are the vessels primarily crewed by U.S. nationals or foreign
    workers?

        Answer. The vessels are crewed by a combination of U.S. and foreign
    crew, all in accordance with applicable U.S. law. Certain officers are
    required by law to be U.S. nationals. Others may be a combination of
    U.S. and foreign nationals. Deck crew is largely foreign nationals,
    many from the Pacific Islands, Philippines, and other countries.

        Question 2. In your testimony you wrote that, ``[f]rom 2020-2022,
    the purse seine fleet caught an average of 5,556 metric tons (mt),
    approximately 10 percent of the fleet's total catch, in the Pacific
    Remote Islands EEZs with an average landed value of $8.31 million
    dollars.'' This statistic suggests an economic impact of the proposed
    sanctuary but is limited to a three-year window in time.

        Answer. Yes, I provided data for the three most recent years as, in
    my view and subject to the explanations provided below, more recent
    data give the most accurate picture of potential impacts going forward.

        2a) Can you share trends in purse seine vessel participation in the
    tuna fishery (i.e., the number of vessels participating per year) and
    catch data over the last 30 years?

        Answer. With respect to the number of vessels, in 1988 there were
    50 U.S. purse seine vessels operating under U.S. flag in the Pacific
    Ocean. By 2007, the fleet had dropped to 11 vessels, but then rebuilt
    to 34 vessels under joint venture arrangements with companies in
    Taiwan. Those joint venture arrangements are no longer in operation
    and, as a result, the fleet has again dropped to its current level of
    13 vessels, including the 12 based in American Samoa.
        Regrettably, the catch and effort data you are requesting for the
    U.S. fleet are not readily available to my organization, the American
    Tunaboat Association. NOAA's response to our initial request for catch
    and effort date in the Pacific Remote Islands Areas (PRIAs), in
    particular, was that we would have to file a Freedom of Information Act
    Request. The information subsequently provided, and which I cited in my
    testimony, was produced in response to a request from the Governor of
    American Samoa. I understand that this same information has been
    provided to your office. (NOAA has very recently provided some
    additional information that I believe would have been provided to your
    office as well.)

        2b) In the last 30 years, what proportion of total landings have
    come from the proposed expansion area around Howland and Baker Islands
    and Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll?

        Answer. According to NOAA, and for the period for which NOAA
    provided data, 84 percent of the catch from the PRIAs has been landed
    in American Samoa.

        2c) Starkist was recently fined $100 million for price fixing and
    $65 million for violations of the Clean Water Act. This financial
    burden was caused by company business practices not access to fishing
    grounds. In your opinion, how are business practices affecting the
    viability of the cannery?

        Answer. With respect, I am not qualified to answer this question as
    I have no direct knowledge of the business practices of the StarKist
    cannery.

        2d) What is the average annual catch delivered to the cannery
    (including by vessels not within the U.S. Purse Seine fleet) over the
    last 30 years?

        Answer. Again, ATA does not have ready access to this data. NOAA
    and or StarKist would be the best sources for this information.

        2e) What percentage of tuna processed by the Starkist Cannery in
    American Samoa is caught by U.S. flagged ships?

        Answer. According to information provided by StarKist, for the past
    three years, the percentage of light meat tuna supplied by U.S. vessels
    to the cannery was 97.8 percent in 2020, 72.5 percent in 2021, and 76.6
    percent in 2022, for a three-year average of 82.3 percent.

        Question 3. The U.S. tuna fleet has choices on where to land their
    fish, and often it is not in American Samoa.

        3a) How do vessel owners decide where to land their catch?

        Answer. Where a vessel decides to land its catch is based on a
    number of factors, the two most important being price and distance. For
    every fishing trip, the single largest variable cost is fuel, up to and
    recently exceeding one-half million U.S. dollars per trip. Vessels will
    seek to catch and land fish, while maximizing the efficient use of
    fuel.
        For the past three years, the oceanographic conditions in the
    Pacific Ocean have resulted in concentrations of fish in the Central
    Pacific Ocean, north of American Samoa (this according to scientists
    from the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, or SPC). As a result,
    the fleet has been able to operate largely in areas relatively closer
    to American Samoa: on the high seas, in the U.S. EEZ and, when
    purchasing access from the Pacific Island States, in waters under the
    jurisdiction of Kiribati, the Cook Islands, Tuvalu, and Tokelau.
    Barring some exceptional circumstance, vessels operating in these areas
    will return to American Samoa to offload their catch.
        However, there are circumstances that require vessels to operate
    further from American Samoa, such as the prohibitions on setting on
    FADs established by the WCPFC, during which the vessels may move to the
    Eastern Pacific Ocean where the WCPFC restrictions do not apply
    (although separate requirements do apply as established by the Inter-
    American Tropical Tuna Commission, or IATTC.) In such cases, vessels
    may return to American Samoa, but in some cases may head to Mexico or
    Ecuador to offload, once again depending on the distance to be
    traveled, the price paid at a particular port, and other factors.

        3b) Is there more that can be done to encourage the U.S. fleet to
    offload a greater portion of their catch in American Samoa to support
    the cannery?

        Answer. YES, absolutely! The two most important things that can be
    done to encourage more fish being delivered to the cannery in American
    Samoa are as follows:

        First, to maintain as much access as possible to the fishing
    grounds closest to American Samoa. This includes maximizing access for
    U.S. vessels to fish on the high seas AND in the U.S. EEZ around the
    PRIAs. The greater the fishing opportunities in these areas, the more
    of that fish will be offloaded in American Samoa. Conversely, if
    vessels are further pushed out of these areas, either by losing high
    seas access or access to the PRIAs, landings in American Samoa will
    also be reduced.
        As noted in my written testimony, one of the consequences of the
    2014 monument expansion in the PRIAs was the closure of the entire U.S.
    EEZ around Jarvis Island and other islands. A modification to the
    existing monument, to allow the purse seine fleet to operate from 50 to
    200 miles in the EEZ surrounding Jarvis Island, would be a significant
    step, with no risk to the unique, endemic, reef, near-shore and deep-
    sea habitats the monument is intended to protect.

        Second, to work to ensure that the American Samoa-based tuna purse
    seine fleet is treated in the same way as the other fleets operating in
    support of ``small island developing States and Territories,'' or SIDS.
    The Convention establishing the WCPFC makes clear the obligation of the
    Commission to ensure that such States and Territories are afforded the
    same treatment and that no such State or Territory shoulders a
    ``disproportionate burden'' as a result of conservation and management
    measures adopted by the Commission. The Commission has not lived up to
    its obligation to American Samoa in this regard.
        Under these provisions, the Pacific Island States exempt vessels
    flying their flags or operating under Charter arrangements from key
    requirements of the WCPFC conservation measures. These include the
    three-month FAD closure from July through September, the additional
    two-month high seas FAD closure, and limits on access to fishing on the
    high seas. Many of these flag or charter vessels are not from Pacific
    Island States at all, but from China, Korea, Taiwan, and the
    Philippines. And yet, these vessels are exempt from the requirements on
    the basis of some loose affiliation, often no more than a piece of
    paper, with a Pacific Island State that has SIDS status. If the U.S.
    purse seine fleet is to compete and survive against this increasingly
    uneven foreign competition, the playing field must be leveled, and the
    American Samoa-based fleet must be treated in the same way as other
    SIDS fleets.

        Finally, it is important to note that over the long term, to
    reestablish American Samoa's status as the processing hub that it once
    was, some future growth will be required in the size of the U.S. fleet.
    Some groups have expressed concern about such an increase, but these
    groups seem to forget or ignore that the U.S. fleet is the most
    rigorously managed, thoroughly monitored, and strictly enforced fleet
    operating anywhere in the Pacific. U.S. consumers should be interested
    in buying as much tuna as possible caught by U.S. flag vessels, rather
    than from foreign competition that operates at nothing close to the
    same standards.

        3c) What other ports does the U.S. Purse Seine fleet land its catch
    at?

        Answer. When fishing in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, vessels may
    occasionally offload fish in such ports as Manta, Ecuador; or Mazatlan
    or Manzanillo, Mexico.

        3d) Are there other major ports in the Pacific or in Asia that
    purchase significant quantities of tuna?

        Answer. The major fish processing centers in the Western Pacific
    and Asia are Bangkok, Thailand; General Santos, Philippines; and Papua
    New Guinea. When the U.S. fleet was larger, some vessels would
    transship their catch to Bangkok or General Santos through ports in the
    Marshall Islands or the Federated States of Micronesia. However, the
    current fleet does not use these ports. On rare occasions, vessels may
    also offload or transship in the Solomon Islands or in Kiribati, but
    this is not the norm.
        As noted above, Ecuador and Mexico are the two principal canning
    centers in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons-Fly. I now
    recognize Ms. Kargi for 5 minutes.
        You are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF FLORENCE KARGI, REGIONAL AFFAIRS MANAGER, COASTAL
                VILLAGES REGION FUND, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

        Ms. Kargi. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my
    name is Florence Kargi. I am the Regional Affairs Manager for
    Coastal Villages Region Fund, which is one of six non-profit
    CDQ groups.
        The Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program
    gives Bering Sea villages a chance to invest in the fishing
    industry and use those earnings for economic development and
    related programs. Congress added CDQ to the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act in 1996. There are 65 villages with nearly 30,000 residents
    in the CDQ program. CVRF is the largest of the six groups. We
    serve more than 9,000 residents in 20 villages, including my
    hometown of Hooper Bay.
        Growing up in western Alaska was hard. We had no running
    water in our home. We hauled water for washing dishes and
    filling the Danby washer. Our toilet was a honey bucket, a 5-
    gallon bucket with a plastic bag and a toilet seat on top. When
    I was 12, I got to empty the honey bucket along with my other
    chores. I thought this was normal. Even today, only six of
    CVRF's 20 villages have piped water and sewer systems. However,
    CVRF was recently able to help one of our villages, Tununak,
    qualify for Federal and state investment in a water system.
        As a middle schooler, I looked up to high schoolers in our
    village as role models. Unfortunately, the youth suicide rate
    in our region was many times higher than the national average.
    Again, I thought this was normal. Later, I realized I wanted
    something different for myself. CVRF gave me hope. I applied
    for and received a college scholarship in 2009, and began
    working there full-time in 2013. Today, CVRF employs hundreds
    of teenagers during the summer. We keep them active and
    engaged, learning new job skills and maintaining Alaska Native
    cultural activities.
        I am so grateful for the leaders from our region who fought
    to create CDQ. Harold Sparck and others like Louis Bunyan and
    Joe Paniyak, who didn't even speak English well, they showed up
    at government meetings and convinced stakeholders to support
    this important program. Thanks to them, CVRF owns and operates
    its own vessels in the Bering Sea. We sell seafood around the
    globe, earning $75 to $90 million in revenue, and $12 to $15
    million for our benefits programs.
        CVRF offers many different benefits. We help our residents
    acquire and maintain equipment like ATVs, snow machines, and
    small boats for commercial fishing and subsistence use. We run
    mechanic and welder shops in our villages, and we even provide
    warranty repairs on some Honda products. We also provide fuel
    oil to heat homes in late winter, when people start to run out.
        We partnered with BIA and USDA on a housing program that
    convinced banks to offer mortgages in our communities. And we
    buy salmon from different parts of Alaska for people who live
    in villages where salmon runs are struggling. We believe CVRF
    is the largest private-sector employer across our region.
        The six CDQ groups all have different benefits programs
    that fit their regions, but we all get our resources from the
    Bering Sea. CDQ depends on a healthy fishing industry and
    sustainable fisheries management under the Magnuson-Stevens
    Act.
        The proposed Pribilof Island Sanctuary in the Bering Sea
    threatens sustainable fisheries management and the CDQ program.
    It would let a single tribe with less than 400 people over-rule
    the North Pacific Fishery Management Council inside the
    sanctuary. But there are 64 other CDQ communities and nearly
    30,000 people who benefit from the CDQ program.
        Every CDQ community has a tribe, and almost every resident
    is a tribal member. We struggle with extreme poverty, lack of
    infrastructure, and climate change. CDQ is one of the few
    bright spots helping address these challenges.
        CVRF and three other CDQ groups representing a strong
    majority of CDQ communities and residents are on record
    opposing the sanctuary. We urge NOAA to support the CDQ program
    and not designate a sanctuary in the Bering Sea.
        [Speaking Native language.] Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kargi follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Florence Kargi, Regional Affairs Manager, Coastal
                              Villages Region Fund
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Florence
    Kargi. I am the Regional Affairs Manager for Coastal Villages Region
    Fund (CVRF).
        The Western Alaska Community Development Quota program (CDQ) gives
    Bering Sea villages a chance to invest in the fishing industry and use
    those earnings for economic development and related programs. Congress
    added the CDQ program to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996.
        Sixty-five villages with nearly 30,000 residents participate in the
    CDQ program through six non-profit CDQ Groups. CVRF is the largest of
    the six groups. We serve more than 9000 residents in 20 villages,
    including my hometown of Hooper Bay.
        Growing up in western Alaska was hard. We had no running water in
    our home. We carried in water for washing dishes and filling the Danby
    Washer. Our toilet was a honey bucket--a 5-gallon bucket with a plastic
    bag inside and a toilet seat on top. When I turned 12, I got to empty
    the honey bucket outside along with my other chores. I thought this was
    normal in America.
        Even today, only six of CVRF's 20 villages have piped water and
    sewer systems. However, CVRF was recently able to help one of our
    villages--Tununak--qualify for federal and state investment in a water
    system. We were able to demonstrate enough economic activity in the
    community to make the metrics work and justify this investment.
        As a middle schooler, I looked up to the high schoolers in our
    village as role models. Unfortunately, the youth suicide rate in our
    region was many times higher than the national average. We were losing
    young people at an alarming rate. Again, I thought this was normal.
    Later, I realized I wanted something different for myself. CVRF gave me
    hope. I applied for and received a college scholarship in 2009 and
    began working there full time in 2013.
        Today, CVRF employs hundreds of teenagers in our villages during
    the summer. We keep them active and engaged, learning job skills and
    Alaska Native cultural activities. We try to make a difference by
    addressing issues in our communities in ways that government programs
    often can't do.
        I am so grateful for the leaders from our region who fought to
    create CDQ. Men like Harold Sparck, Louis Bunyan, Joe Paniyak, and
    others who didn't even speak English well showed up at government
    meetings and convinced stakeholders to support this important program.
    Today, thanks to them, CVRF owns and operates its own vessels in the
    Bering Sea. We sell seafood around the globe, earning $75-$90 million
    in revenue and $8-$10 million for our benefits programs every year.
        CVRF offers many different benefits programs. We help our residents
    acquire and maintain equipment like ATV's, snowmachines (snowmobiles),
    skiffs, and outboard motors for commercial fishing and subsistence use.
        We run mechanic/welder shops in our villages and we even provide
    warranty repairs on some Honda products. We also provide fuel oil to
    heat homes in late winter when people start to run out.
        We have partnered with BIA and USDA on a housing program that
    included banks offering mortgages in our villages. And we buy salmon
    from other parts of Alaska for villages where the salmon runs are
    struggling.
        We believe CVRF is the largest private sector employer in our
    villages.
        The six CDQ groups all have different benefits programs that fit
    their regions. But we all get our resources from the Bering Sea.
        CDQ depends on a healthy fishing industry and sustainable fisheries
    management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        The proposed Pribilof Islands Marine Sanctuary in the Bering Sea
    threatens sustainable fisheries management and the CDQ program. A
    single tribe in a village of less than 400 people could over-rule the
    North Pacific Fishery Management Council inside the proposed sanctuary.
    This is because the National Marine Sanctuaries Act says fishery
    management council decisions and even the National Standards in the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act will not apply if they are inconsistent with the
    goals and objectives of the sanctuary.
        There are 65 CDQ villages and nearly 30,000 people who benefit from
    the CDQ program. Every CDQ village has a tribe and almost every
    resident is a Tribal Member. We struggle with extreme poverty, lack of
    infrastructure, and climate change. CDQ is one of the few bright spots
    helping address these challenges.
        CVRF and three other CDQ groups, representing a strong majority of
    CDQ villages and residents, are on record opposing the proposed
    Pribilof Islands sanctuary. We urge NOAA to support the CDQ program and
    not designate a sanctuary in the Bering Sea.

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Ms. Kargi. I now recognize
    Mr. Aila for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF WILLIAM JOHNSON AILA, NATIVE HAWAIIAN FISHERMAN,
                            WAIANAE, HAWAII

        Mr. Aila. Hello and good morning, Chairman Gosar, Ranking
    Member Stansbury, Member Case from Hawaii, and distinguished
    Subcommittee members. Thank you for the opportunity to join you
    today to express my support for Marine Protected Areas.
        You have my written comments and introduction. However, I
    want to share some additional comments on who I am. I am a son,
    I am a grandson, I am a great grandson. I am a father, a
    grandfather, and a great grandfather. I say that for context
    because it is these generational connections that lead me in my
    decision-making and in my advocacy.
        I have been a member of the Western Pacific Fisheries
    Advisory Councils for many, many, many years, serving on the
    advisory panel for bottomfish, pelagics, ecosystem management,
    and Native Hawaiians, and have been advocating for the
    protection of biocultural resources for more than half a
    century. I have the white hair to prove that.
        The Antiquities Act, the Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act are all tools, as stated earlier by
    Representative Stansbury.
        I wish, if I could, have your comments included in the
    record as mine.
        When one tool doesn't work, you apply another tool. So,
    having had all that experience with the Western Pacific
    Fisheries Management Council, watching them mismanage the
    lobster fishery, its collapse, mismanaging the bottomfishery to
    its near collapse, not listening to the citizens that it is
    supposed to listen to, you use another tool. So, the
    Antiquities Act and the Marine Sanctuaries Act were requested
    by citizens, I have never heard citizens mentioned today. All
    of these Acts, all of these management systems are based upon
    input and request, and the desire by citizens to make sure that
    resources are protected in perpetuity.
        Also watching the Western Pacific Fisheries Management
    ignore simple suggestions from fishermen when dealing with
    interactions with endangered species. The simple application of
    a tuna circle hook by longliners would have prevented the
    killing of thousands of sea turtles, seabirds, and mammals. It
    took many years for other groups to sue the Western Pacific
    Fisheries Management Council in court before the longliners
    were forced to utilize the suggestion of the advisory panel
    fishermen. Just ask fishermen. They know what is going on.
        It is citizens that have asked the government to create the
    Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. It is citizens
    that have advocated for and created the Papahanaumokuakea
    Marine Monument that protects ecosystems on a large-scale
    basis. Magnuson has its limitations on management.
        Pacific-wide, large-scale Marine Protected Areas work. I am
    not alone in recognizing the benefits of MPAs. More than 80
    percent of Americans, regardless of demographics, regardless of
    political party, or geographic location believe that we should
    do more to protect the ocean, ensure that activities do not
    harm the environment.
        Because 5 minutes goes by really fast, as a Native
    Hawaiian, there is an ancient cultural mandate to conserve, and
    it has served us well. Preserving biocultural resources is the
    responsibility that is passed on from one generation to
    another.
        The Magnuson is not bad, the Antiquities Act is not bad,
    sanctuaries are not bad. It is the misapplication of these
    tools that create problems. So, I would just urge the Committee
    to consider all of the tools, to consider the opportunity for
    citizens to help advise you, and request for you to apply the
    appropriate tool to each area, and that no Marine Protected
    Area is the same, and that citizens can ask for their
    representation in each MPA.

        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Aila follows:]
     Prepared Statement of William J. Aila, Jr., Native Hawaiian Fisherman

    Introduction

        Aloha and good morning, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury,
    and distinguished subcommittee members. Thank you for the opportunity
    to join you today to express my support for marine protected areas
    (MPAs).

        I am a Native Hawaiian fisherman who has fished commercially,
    recreationally, and for cultural/religious ceremonies; a public servant
    who has held leadership positions at the Hawai'i State Department of
    Land and Natural Resources and the Hawai'i Department of Hawaiian
    Homelands; a member of the Pacific Remote Islands (PRI) Coalition; and
    a longtime supporter of MPAs in the Pacific. I have served on the
    Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM) advisory committee
    for more than 20 years, and was Chairman for half of that time. I am
    also a founding member of the Native Hawaiian Cultural Working Group,
    serving as its First Chair. The working group provides advice to the
    state of Hawai'i, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the PMNM Advisory
    Committee. I have been fortunate to spend most of my life living on the
    Waianae Coast on Oahu, engaging in cultural, personal, and professional
    activities related to the ocean.

        In my various roles within my community and with the government, I
    have come to understand the importance of MPAs in providing economic
    benefits to communities, while protecting our precious ocean resources.
    This protection honors our ancestors and recognizes our stewardship
    obligations for future generations.

        There is much about the Marine Sanctuary and Monument System that
    we could discuss in this hearing, but I have focused my remarks on the
    economic, scientific, and cultural facts. These facts clearly
    demonstrate the increased access to ocean resources that monuments and
    sanctuaries provide, as well as the unequivocal value of MPAs for the
    prosperity of people and places across the United States.

    Overall Value of Marine Protected Areas

        Billions of people worldwide depend on our ocean economically,
    ecologically, and culturally. Americans in particular care deeply about
    the ocean and its health. Regardless of demographics, political party,
    or geographic location, more than 80% believe we should do more to
    protect the ocean and ensure activities do not harm ocean life.\1\ In
    addition to preserving specific areas, habitats, or resources in the
    marine environment, MPAs are a proven tool to support the
    sustainability of ocean fisheries and all who depend on them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Nat'l. Marine Sanctuary Found., Ocean Protection in the United
    States: Exploring the Public's Thoughts, NORC at the Univ. of Chicago
    (Sept. 2022), https://marinesanc.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/
    uploads/2022/09/National-Marine-Sanctuary-Foundation-Survey-Report-
    FINAL-1.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Economic Value of Marine Protected Areas

        The United States exclusive economic zone is the largest in the
    world, encompassing over 13,000 miles of coastline and 3.4 million
    square nautical miles of ocean--greater than the land area of all fifty
    states combined.\2\ Marine protected areas can provide economic
    benefits through tourism, fishing, biodiversity protection, and a range
    of ecosystem services (e.g., climate mitigation). In 2021, the market-
    based marine economy accounted for $432.4 billion of United States
    gross domestic product. Tourism and recreation accounted for the most
    significant portion--$231.8 billion--of the gross output, a 27.3
    percent increase from the 2020 gross output. According to the office of
    National Marine Sanctuaries, about $8 billion annually is generated in
    local economies from diverse activities, jobs, and businesses in the
    commercial fishing, research, and tourism/recreation sectors across all
    National Marine Sanctuaries.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Office of General Counsel, Map of the U.S. Exclusive Economic
    Zone, Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., https://www.gc.noaa.gov/
    documents/2011/012711_gcil_maritime_eez_ map.pdf (last visited Sept.
    18, 2023).
        \3\ National Marine Sanctuaries and Local Economies, Nat'l Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Admin., https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/
    socioeconomic/factsheets/welcome.html (last visited Sept. 18, 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite clear economic benefits of MPAs, fishing communities often
    fear short-term income losses associated with area closures, and thus
    may oppose MPAs. However, studies have shown that the value of a fully
    protected \4\ MPA (as measured by increased tourism and fishing in
    adjacent areas) often exceeds the pre-protection value, and that
    economic benefits can offset the costs in as little as five years.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Using the MPA Guide, Protected Planet, https://mpa-
    guide.protectedplanet.net/UsingTheMPAGuide_2pp.pdf (last visited Sept.
    18, 2023).
        \5\ Enric Sala et al., A General Business Model for Marine
    Reserves, 8:4 PLOS ONE (2013), https://doi.org/10.1371/
    journal.pone.0058799.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Specifically, in areas with high fishing effort, protected areas
    have been found to provide fishery benefits and subsequent revenue
    gain. For example, a recent study from PMNM showed a ``spillover
    effect'' \6\ occurring outside of the MPA. Catch rates of yellowfin and
    bigeye tuna increased by 54% and 12% just outside of the monument's
    boundaries, respectively, benefiting the ecosystem and commercial
    fishermen as well.\7\ In California, a 35% reduction in fishing area
    resulting from MPA designation was compensated for by a 225% increase
    in total catch after six years.\8\ These examples are not limited to
    the United States. In the Galapagos Marine Reserve, findings showed
    that protection positively impacted the productivity of yellowfin and
    skipjack tuna fisheries. Together, these data demonstrate that large
    MPAs can benefit both slow moving and highly migratory species, and
    that the trade-off of fishing ground for no-fishing zones can benefit
    the fishery.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ A ``spillover effect'' occurs when the population of a
    particular species inside a protected area becomes so abundant that it
    ``spills over'' the protected area boundaries and can be targeted by
    fishermen.
        \7\ Sarah Medoff et al., Spillover benefits from the world's
    largest fully protected MPA, Science (Oct. 20, 2022), https://
    www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn0098.
        \8\ Hunter S. Lenihan et al., Evidence that spillover from Marine
    Protected Areas benefits the spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus)
    fishery in southern California, 11 Scientific Reports (2021), https://
    doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82371-5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the ahupua'a, or village level, it is hard to comprehend large
    scale commercial fisheries because the intent of the local fishermen is
    to feed his family and the village. With that mindset, sustainable
    fishing is the custom or rule--do not take more than your village
    needs. I heard this from several elder Samoan fishermen during the PRI
    scoping session in American Samoa. I have also heard them state that
    since the development of the purse seine fishery, their catch rates,
    and thus their ability to feed the village, have declined. In the many
    one on one meetings with Samoans from different villages, once the
    distance of more than 1,000 miles to the proposed sanctuary was
    understood, they all indicated that the proposed sanctuary would not
    impact their cultural practices.
        A similar situation occurred in the 1990s in Hawai'i when there was
    a large influx of longline fishing vessels to territorial waters. The
    pelagic species fisheries have improved recently due to new regulations
    that separated the longline fleet from the local fishermen by moving
    the longlines out to beyond 70 miles from shore. There was a lot of
    talk that the longline fishery would collapse, but it did not. The
    expansion of the boundaries of PMNM brought the same cries from
    longliners, but they continue to fill their annual quotas, including
    the quotas that they purchased from American Samoa, Guam, and the
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Longline fishing near the
    new boundary in PMNM has resulted in an increase in yellowfin tuna
    catch, indicating that the protected area works.
    Scientific Value of Marine Protected Areas

        Marine protected areas provide many biological and ecological
    benefits. A meta-analysis on 124 marine reserves in 29 countries showed
    that, on average, marine reserves cause increases of 21% in the number
    of species, 28% in the size of organisms, 166% in number of individuals
    per unit area, and 446% in biomass, relative to unprotected areas
    nearby.\9\ In predatory fish, biomass increases can be even greater
    than the average values,10-12 rehabilitating a degraded
    state typical of intensely fished sites and enhancing ecosystem
    resilience by promoting the recovery of populations of functionally
    important species. While some pelagic predator species found in these
    areas appear to be at a fraction of their historical norms, likely due
    to regional fishing pressure (e.g., yellowfin tuna, oceanic whitetip,
    and bigeye tuna), other parts of the predator community are still
    relatively intact with high biomass of top predators, especially reef
    sharks and some tuna species (e.g., skipjack).13,14 The PRI
    are providing critical information on baseline functioning of reef and
    pelagic systems with robust predator communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Sarah E. Lester et al., Biological Effects Within No-Take
    Marine Reserves: A Global Synthesis, 384 Marine Ecology Progress Series
    (2009), https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08029.
        \10\ Paolo Guidetti & Eric Sala, Community-wide effects of marine
    reserves in the Mediterranean Sea, 335 Marine Ecology Progress Series
    (2007), https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v335/p43-56/.
        \11\ Fiorenza Micheli et al., Trajectories and Correlates of
    Community Change in No-Take Marine Reserves, 14:6 Ecological
    Applications: Ecological Soc. of Am. (2004), https://doi.org/10.1890/
    03-5260.
        \12\ Garry R. Russ & Angel C. Alcala, Marine reserves: long-term
    protection is required for full recovery of predatory fish populations,
    138 Oecologia (2004), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1456-4.
        \13\ Stuart A. Sandin et al., Baselines and Degradation of Coral
    Reefs in the Northern Line Islands, 3:2 PLOS ONE (2008), https://
    doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001548.
        \14\ Douglas J. McCauley et al., On the prevalence and dynamics of
    inverted trophic pyramids and otherwise top-heavy communities, 21:3
    Ecology Letters (2018), https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12900.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fisheries benefit from protected areas when they help replenish
    nearby habitats through spillover of adult organisms and dispersal of
    larvae.\15\ By providing a safe haven for organisms to reach maximum
    size and reproductive output,16,17 protected areas actually
    contribute to increasing seafood supply while simultaneously achieving
    many other benefits (e.g., habitat protection and climate resilience).
    In fact, fishermen's behaviors are changing to demonstrate MPAs work.
    Historically, the waters surrounding PRI were lightly fished by
    commercial fishers. Before 2014, the catch from these waters accounted
    for less than 5% of the longliners' total annual harvest according to
    Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council's 2013 annual
    report. Since the PRI boundaries were expanded in 2014, the longliners
    have exhausted their quota every year, and effectively zero percent of
    the Hawai'i longline fishing effort comes from the area. The area also
    accounts for less than 5% of effort and catch for the purse seine
    fleet. In four of the last six years, the area accounted for less than
    0.5% of purse seine effort.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Sarah E. Lester et al., supra note 9.
        \16\ Michelle J. Paddack & James A. Estes, Kelp Forest Fish
    Populations in Marine Reserves and Adjacent Exploited Areas of Central
    California, 10:3 Ecological Applications: Ecological Soc. Of Am.
    (2000), https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-
    0761(2000)010[0855:KFFPIM]2.0.CO;2.
        \17\ Trevor J. Willis et al., Protection of exploited fish in
    temperate regions: high density and biomass of snapper Pagrus auratus
    (Sparidae) in northern New Zealand marine reserves, 40:2 J. of Applied
    Ecology (2003), https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00775.x.
        \18\ Environmental Markets Lab, Analysis of historic fishing
    activity within the proposed National Marine Sanctuary for the Pacific
    Remote Islands, University of California, Santa Barbara, https://
    emlab.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/documents/
    pri_proposed_sanctuary_report.pdf, (last visited Sept. 18, 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        MPAs offer a proven solution to rehabilitating declining
    populations and remediating adverse climate impacts. They can protect
    settings that store massive amounts of carbon; buffer coastlines and
    coastal communities from storm impacts; provide a refuge for resources
    that may be harmed by consequences of a changing climate; and,
    depending on their size and layout, protect species moving due to
    climate impacts. They can also protect some of the last healthy, remote
    ocean places on the planet. For example, the waters of the PRI are home
    to an array of threatened, endangered, and critically endangered
    species including sharks, rays, whales, seabirds, and turtles. The
    unprotected areas are home to 98 seamounts, which are known to be
    ecological hotspots with species never seen before. Protecting this
    area will safeguard swaths of open ocean ecosystems that are
    intricately connected to nearshore coral reefs and protect habitats for
    endangered and threatened species, such as sharks and birds, who travel
    far beyond the current boundaries to breed, forage, and rest. This
    setting meets all 8 criteria for implementing an MPA: location; content
    (ecological, cultural, economic); size; remoteness; time; connections;
    compliance; and enforcement.
        As climate change impacts continue to increase as a result of
    global warming, it becomes ever more critical to identify the locations
    best suited for adding to the Pacific inventory of MPAs. The expansion
    of the Western Pacific Warm Pool is pushing migratory pelagic fishes to
    the east, hence the PRI are ideally located to provide a suitable area
    for enhancement of these populations as the ``principal'' that will
    generate the reproductive output, or interest, that can be sustainably
    harvested by fishing the line.
    Cultural Value of Marine Protected Areas

        As Native Hawaiians, there is an ancient cultural mandate to
    conserve and it has served us well. Preserving biocultural resources is
    a responsibility passed down from one generation to the next.
    Preventing overharvesting perpetuates culture by having fish, birds,
    and other species that show no fear of humans. This allows
    practitioners to observe their natural behavior and record this
    behavior in oli (prayers), mele (songs), and hula (dances). These
    cultural ways of passing on knowledge (i.e., the values that bind and
    maintain our culture) are inclusive of our relationship with the fish,
    birds, and other species that we relate to.
        As Pacific Islanders, we all come from the same genealogy--one of
    care for people, place, and resources. It is because of this practice
    that we have been able to subsist from, and live in harmony with, our
    ocean. Historically, however, our communities have been excluded from
    conversations related to protection. Now, there is a growing awareness
    and desire for conservation in Pacific Islanders, likely caused by a
    resurgence of ocean voyaging. For centuries, remote ocean waters have
    been used for passage by Polynesians, Micronesians and possibly
    Melanesians who relied on the intact ecosystems for voyaging. To
    navigate wide expanses of open ocean, seafarers in the region had a
    deep and nuanced understanding of ocean currents, winds, skies, and
    wildlife. They used marine corridors to reach remote islands throughout
    the Pacific, including those of the PRI. As stopping points for
    resources, temporary shelter, and cultural practice, the PRI have a
    deep legacy of voyaging and the potential to perpetuate its practice
    into the future.
        Hokule'a, the Polynesian voyaging canoe, is currently on a pacific-
    wide voyage to educate and collect examples of Indigenous resilience so
    that these examples may be shared with current and future generations.
    As part of this awakening, Pacific Islanders want to have a part in the
    management of their marine resources. Marine protected areas are a
    natural management tool because most island cultures have experience
    with resource protection and protected areas. It is a part of their
    cultural traditions. Resource management is critical so that future
    generations always have access to biocultural resources. And, sometimes
    it means that the current generation has to harvest less, ensuring that
    future generations have biocultural resources to perpetuate their way
    of life. Not all natural resources need to be removed and converted
    into capital. Instead, and more importantly, we need to maintain
    cultural capital and the rich history woven into it.
        This history, and the service and sacrifice of Pacific Islanders,
    is captured in several places, including the Hui Panala'au. From 1935
    to 1942, 130 young men from Kamehameha School were sent to Howland,
    Baker, and Jarvis Islands to colonize them for the United States. These
    Native Hawaiian men meticulously documented the environmental
    conditions of the islands and their waters, recorded weather patterns,
    and surveyed seabirds, laying the foundation for future discoveries.
    With limited medical access and exposure to bombings during World War
    II (WWII), three members of Hui Panala'au lost their lives as a result
    of their service.
        The PRI and its surrounding waters also hold the final resting
    places of shipwrecks and other abandoned historic sites ranging from
    the whaling era in the 19th century to WWII. Expanding protection of
    this area would allow for further exploration and potential discovery
    of wrecks, WWII-era ordnance, and other artifacts of historic and
    cultural value.
        Ocean protection not only honors and preserves the history of
    lands, waters, and the people who cross them, but allows for continued
    exploration, discovery, and perpetuation of culture.
    Conclusion

        The security and growth of our ocean economy are dependent upon the
    health and well-being of our ocean ecosystem and the communities
    reliant upon it. Monuments and sanctuaries increase access to people,
    businesses, and communities beyond the fishing fleets, allowing ongoing
    access to biocultural resources for the generations that follow us. As
    such, it is critical that we continue to protect and restore marine
    habitats while investing in communities.
        Efforts to protect our ocean, and the derivative value to the
    economy, ecosystem, and community, are not new. Since the creation of
    the PRI Marine National Monument by President Bush in 2009, support for
    expansion has continued to grow. This support resulted in President
    Obama expanding protections in 2014 after the United States
    government's public consultation saw strong public support for
    expanding and fully protecting these waters. More than 135,000 United
    States citizens, including Hawaiian residents, business owners, and
    nonprofit organization representatives, sent messages supporting the
    plan. Many Hawaiian and Pacific leaders also voiced strong support.
    Once again, the government opened a public comment period in the spring
    of 2023 to scope the possibility of creating a National Marine
    Sanctuary that expands protections to the PRI. The comments offered
    broad, deep, and overwhelming support from communities across the
    Pacific and the country for the designation of the new National Marine
    Sanctuary, with over 80% of the posted comments expressing strong
    support. The support continues to grow from cultural practitioners
    across the Pacific, scientists, elected officials, businesses,
    recreational fishing organizations, youth organizations, zoos and
    aquariums, and local, regional and national organizations.
        We must give thanks to the things we care about, so that they may
    continue to provide for current and future generations and continue to
    support traditional ways of knowing and being.

                                     ______

    Questions Submitted for the Record to William Johnson Aila Jr., Native
                               Hawaiian Fisherman

                 Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

        Question 1. What actions can Congress take to help strike a balance
    between achieving our conservation goals and supporting local economic
    stability and growth around marine protected areas in the Pacific?

        Answer. Marine protected areas (MPAs) have the broad goal of
    conserving biodiversity, wildlife, and underwater landscapes that face
    unprecedented impacts from climate change. There are many types of
    MPAs, with a range of goals and effectiveness, and the issues and the
    conservation outcomes from one MPA type will differ from another. Some
    MPAs prohibit all extractive activities, while others permit almost all
    types of extraction.
        The higher the level of protection, the greater the potential to
    conserve and restore healthy and biodiverse ecosystems, and the
    benefits they provide to people. For example, fully and highly
    protected areas \1\ are expected to result in restoration of ecological
    interactions; recovery of habitat; increased abundance, size, and
    reproductive output of previously exploited species; and enhanced
    climate adaptation and resilience potential. These types of MPAs can
    also serve as reference areas for evaluating the impacts of extractive
    and destructive activities outside of the protected area, buffers
    against mismanagement or environmental changes, and savings accounts
    for fisheries outside of the MPA. In the case of the Pacific Remote
    Islands (PRI), a highly protected area (i.e., one that allows only
    light extractive activities that have low total impact and minimizes
    all other abatable impacts) is being proposed. Implementing a highly
    protected PRI national marine sanctuary will allow the species and
    ecosystems within the sanctuary boundaries to recover and flourish, and
    ultimately provide opportunities for the continuation of sustainable
    cultural, traditional, and spiritual practices; economic growth; and
    ecological resilience.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Using the MPA Guide, Protected Planet, https://mpa-
    guide.protectedplanet.net/UsingThe MPAGuide_2pp.pdf (last visited Sept.
    18, 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While fully and highly protected MPAs are expected to produce the
    strongest conservation benefits, MPAs are not a panacea for
    conservation; they are one tool that can be used alongside other
    techniques to protect, conserve, and sustain ocean and coastal
    resources and ecosystems for current and future generations. Where
    marine protected areas take a holistic approach to protecting nature
    and ecosystems, other tools like fishery conservation and management
    prioritize the extraction of the highest sustainable catch of target
    species over time. Despite this difference in goals, highly protected
    MPAs have been shown to also contribute to the maintenance and
    replenishment of fisheries stocks.
        To help strike a balance between achieving our conservation goals
    and supporting local economic stability and growth around marine
    protected areas in the Pacific, Congress should invest in more,
    strategically located and effective MPAs. Such investments are needed
    to ensure a healthy ocean now and for future generations and could
    include developing scientific evaluation of and planning for the
    existing marine protected areas in the Pacific; understanding how they
    function in terms of a connected network of marine protected areas;
    developing wildlife corridors; and connecting important habitats for
    the various life stages of marine species. Congress should support,
    strengthen, and protect proven conservation methods, like the National
    Marine Sanctuary System and Marine National Monuments, that have
    demonstrated time and time again that they provide benefits to local
    ``blue economies.'' As an example, Congress could encourage NOAA to
    create the proposed Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary
    with strong protections in the Howland and Baker and Palmyra and
    Kingman areas. Congress then, through funding the National Marine
    Sanctuaries Program via annual appropriations, has the capacity to
    resource critical conservation programs in the Pacific including
    cultural programs, habitat restoration, scientific discovery, education
    programs, enforcement of existing regulations, and more. Protecting PRI
    would help ensure the survival of critically endangered species
    including sharks, rays, whales, seabirds, and turtles while
    simultaneously bolstering important, economy driving fisheries,
    including yellowfin and bigeye tuna.
        Congress also has the ability to reauthorize tax credits that, in
    the past, played a key role in supporting fishery-based businesses.
    Most helpful of these tax credits is the American Samoan Economic
    Development Credit, also known as the section 30a tax credit provision,
    which for years helped the largest private sector employer in American
    Samoa, the Starkist Cannery, operate successfully.
        Congress could make investments in the sustainable blue economy of
    American Samoa, providing financial incentives to support a diversified
    economy. There are a variety of labor issues that Congress could
    explore, from minimum wage, foreign labor force, and mandating or
    incentivizing the U.S. flagged vessels to offload tuna catch at the
    cannery in American Samoa. These changes would ensure a consistent and
    regular delivery of fish to support a sustainable operation, addressing
    gaps in supply due to periods of time where vessels choose to deliver
    to other canneries.
        Finally, Congress could advocate for an increased tuna catch quota
    for U.S. fisheries in the Western Pacific or consider supporting
    pathways for American Samoa to gain more favorable status under the
    Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.

                   Questions Submitted by Representative Case

        Question 1. What available data supports the idea that expanding
    the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary will benefit
    pelagic fisheries in the Pacific?

        Answer. The primary purpose of expanding protections for the
    Pacific Remote Islands (PRI) is to create a nature preserve that
    protects and preserves Indigenous culture and cultural practices in one
    of the world's only remaining pristine ocean areas. It is extremely
    rare to have such an intact and healthy ocean ecosystem where large
    fish swim, whales are free from entanglement, and navigators can rely
    on the natural cues of the surrounding wildlife to guide long distance
    voyages, allowing the perpetuation of cultural practices that have
    plied the waters for centuries.
        We also know that protecting areas from commercial fishing,
    especially at industrial scales, means 1000s of tonnes of fish and
    other wildlife unintentionally caught in fishing nets the size of
    football fields will not be killed in this area each year. These fish
    are then able to grow, thrive, and reproduce, resulting in robust and
    healthy populations that can spill over into areas that are open to
    fishing.

        There is also evidence from commercial fishermen's own records that
    demonstrate benefits of large scale marine protected areas (MPAs).
    Commercial fishermen are required to report their ``catch rates''
    (i.e., the estimated number of fish caught per unit of effort) when
    fishing in different areas. This publicly available fishing data tells
    us two important things:

         After the expansion of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine
                National Monument in 2016, catch rates for yellowfin tuna
                (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)
                improved in the waters surrounding the protected area.
                Specifically, catch rates in the waters near the new
                monument boundary saw a dramatic increase of 0.5 bigeye
                tuna per 1000 hooks (a 12% increase over pre-expansion
                levels), 0.6 yellowfin per 1000 hooks (a 54% increase over
                pre-expansion levels), and 1.9 fish of any species per 1000
                hooks.\2\ This means that fishermen are catching fish with
                far less effort, which can translate into safer and more
                profitable fishing trips and a benefit to the fishery.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Sarah Medoff et al., Spillover benefits from the world's
    largest fully protected MPA, Science (Oct. 20, 2022), https://
    www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn0098.

         The U.S. purse seine and U.S. longline fleets have spent
                less than 0.5% of their fishing effort (total amount of
                fishing activity on the fishing grounds over a given period
                of time) inside the proposed protected areas of the Pacific
                Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary according to
                automatic identification system vessel monitoring data
                obtained through Global Fishing Watch (GFW) from the last
                ten years (2013-2022). Western and Central Pacific
                Fisheries Commission-reported catch data indicates that
                only 0.10% of the U.S. purse seine fleet's catch came from
                within the proposed Sanctuary. A report by the
                Environmental Markets Lab within the University of
                California, Santa Barbara outlines these findings.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Environmental Markets Lab, Analysis of historic fishing
    activity within the proposed National Marine Sanctuary for the Pacific
    Remote Islands, University of California, Santa Barbara, https://
    emlab.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/documents/
    pri_proposed_sanctuary_report.pdf, (last visited Sept. 18, 2023).

        Based on this publicly available fishing data, it is clear that
    expanding protections for the Howland and Baker and Palmyra and Kingman
    areas by creating the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Sanctuary
    would not greatly impact the U.S. flagged fishing fleets' existing
    practices and catch, nor would it restrict how many days fishing
    vessels can fish or how much a vessel can catch. United States
    vessels--which operate on a quota-based system--will continue to be
    able to fish in other places, with many fishing grounds already located
    closer to home ports.
        Additionally, because of climate change, the western Pacific warm
    pool is expanding, resulting in the movement of pelagic fish
    populations to the east and north. The PRI are the ideal location for a
    large-scale MPA due to the strategic location as a recipient site for
    migrating fish populations where they can grow and the associated
    opportunity for protecting large female fish will result in increased
    reproductive output for population replenishment.

        Question 2. Despite being a former WESPAC member yourself, you have
    raised questions about WESPAC's ability to sustainably manage a
    fishery. Why is that? In your opinion, does the Council adequately
    balance commercial, recreational and conservation interests? What other
    tools can the government use to ensure the sustainable management of
    our fisheries for future generations?

        Answer. According to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, all fishery
    management councils must implement ``conservation and management
    measures [that] shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a
    continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United
    States fishing industry.'' The Western Pacific Fisheries Council
    (WESPAC) has demonstrated that it has an inability to balance optimum
    yield and conservation and a clear bias towards commercial fishing as
    evidenced by:

         Rapidly expanding the longline fleet;

         Resisting to enact regulations that placed a cap on the
                number of vessels, require a log book, or institute a
                vessel monitoring system;

         Resisting efforts to create a longline closure area to
                separate longliners from local fishermen until there were
                incidents of violence;

         Mismanaging the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands bottom fish
                fishery until it was eventually phased out; \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Teresa Dawson, New Rules for Bottomfish: Are They Too Little,
    Too Late?, Environment Hawai'i (June 1998), https://www.environment-
    hawaii.org/?p=3398.

         Mismanaging the lobster fishery, resulting in the collapse
                of both the spiny and slipper lobster stocks and the
                placement of a zero quota by President Bush.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ POACHERS R US: Overfishing of lobster pushes Hawaiian monk
    seals toward extinction. Who's accountable, Cascadia Times, https://
    times.org/poachers-r-us-overfishing-of-lobster-pushes-hawaiian-monk-
    seals-toward-extinction-whos-account

        Luckily, the U.S. has several other tools at hand that can help
    protect economic livelihoods and preserve irreplaceable natural
    resources. One such option is amending the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act, making all council executive directors
    federal employees and subject to federal ethics regulations. Another
    option is the creation of a national marine sanctuary. Having seen
    WESPAC's failures in the past, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific
    Islanders have proactively proposed the creation of the Pacific Remote
    Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The proposed sanctuary would, among
    many other benefits to the local environment and economies of the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pacific, help ensure the longevity of critical fisheries.

        Question 3. Can you elaborate on the cultural practices and
    traditions that we risk losing should we fail to properly protect and
    sustain the waters of the proposed Pacific Remote Islands National
    Marine Sanctuary?

        Answer. The culture of wayfinding by Hawaiians, Chamorro,
    Carolinians, Marshallese, and other Pacific Indigenous groups would
    suffer negative impacts, or irrevocable loss, if the ecosystems of the
    Pacific Remote Islands (PRI) are not protected. A clear consequence of
    failing to properly protect and sustain the PRI waters would be the
    reduction of seabirds by overfishing and destructive fishing
    techniques. Navigators rely on a healthy seabird population to provide
    signs as to the proximity of islands, especially low-lying islands. A
    healthy seabird population is dependent upon a healthy tuna population
    as tuna and sea birds work together to feed on schools of smaller fish.
    Seabird feces are a critical source of nitrogen to the plants that
    inhabit PRI and in turn provide the basis of a food chain that leads to
    healthy coral reefs and healthy coral reef ecosystems, each
    interrelated and dependent on each other. There are many voyaging
    stories that need to be collected from all of the Pacific Indigenous
    groups and in those stories additional cultural practices will be
    brought forward. However, those practices cannot be perpetuated without
    healthy PRI ecosystems, and those healthy PRI ecosystems cannot be
    sustained without proper protection.

        Question 4. Can you elaborate on the opportunities for co-
    management with the State of Hawai`i and the Native Hawaiian Community
    that marine protected areas in the Pacific have offered?

        Answer. Papahanaumokuakea has always been closely managed with
    Native Hawaiian influence. Native Hawaiians were made co-trustees by
    President Obama during its expansion phase in 2016. The Office of
    Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) represents Native Hawaiians at the management
    level and works cooperatively with the State of Hawaii and its federal
    partner agencies. This partnership is unique within the national marine
    sanctuary system and has allowed for co-trustees to leverage funding,
    share ship space, and participate in other creative cooperative
    projects. A result of this unique co-management was the successful
    designation of Papahanaumokuakea as a World Heritage site based on its
    biological and cultural treasures as well as the completion of the Mai
    Ka Po Mai.\6\ As co-managers, Native Hawaiiians--specifically the
    Papahanaumokuakea Native Hawaiian Working Group--through the Office of
    Hawaiian Affairs completed Mai Ka Po Mai in 2021. The resource, which
    provides a Native Hawaiian perspective and guidance that uses
    traditional concepts and cultural traditions as a foundation for
    management in Papahanaumokuakea, is a culmination of 10 years of
    discussion and collaboration. Designating the PRI National Marine
    Sanctuary presents a new opportunity to protect these special,
    connected areas and have representation from, and co-management with,
    Hawaii, the U.S. Pacific territories, and possibly independent Pacific
    nations. A strong relationship and shared kuleana, or responsibility
    and privilege, could improve our Pacific relations and buffer China's
    increasing influence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Office of Hawaiian Affairs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State of Hawai'i,
    Mai Ka Po Mai: A Native Hawaiian Guidance Document for the Management
    of Papahanaumokuakea, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2021), https://
    www.oha.org/wp-content/uploads/MaiKaPoMai_FINAL-web.pdf.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Aila. I now recognize
    Mr. Reid for his 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF ERIC REID, CHAIR, NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT
                 COUNCIL, NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND

        Mr. Reid. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members, thank you
    very much for allowing me to testify today. My name is Eric
    Reid, and I am a fisheries consultant based in Rhode Island, a
    long way from my three other panelists.
        I am also the Chair of the New England Fisheries Management
    Council, and my testimony today may include information in
    publicly available documents produced by the Council and
    others. But Mr. Chairman, my comments and opinions are my own.
        My experience is with the implementation of both the
    Antiquities Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act in Federal waters,
    particularly in southern New England. So, let's start with the
    older one first.
        The Antiquities Act of 1906 is a 1-page document that does
    provide in section 2 that the President is hereby authorized,
    in his discretion alone, to declare national monuments, the
    limits of which shall be confined to the smallest area
    compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be
    protected. However, the Act does not require the President to
    produce an evidentiary record nor follow specific procedures
    and analysis such as APA, NEPA, and others, including Magnuson.
        On September 16, 2016, the President used the Act to
    designate the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National
    Monument, an area of 4,914 square miles located southeast of
    New England. The process that was used to develop the monument
    began in September 2015 in Providence, Rhode Island, at a town
    hall meeting. At that time, the monument was only an idea, and
    it lacked clear shape, form, or detail, making for any specific
    or informative comments by stakeholders difficult at best. And
    that was the only public meeting held on that issue.
        Then, in August 2016, a proposal was presented to the
    public that only included location information and little else.
    Forty-three days later, the monument was proclaimed. Extractive
    activities such as mining, et cetera are prohibited in the
    monument. Also, commercial fishing of any kind is also
    prohibited in the monument. But recreational fishing is
    allowed, and this includes, especially in fisheries like the
    tuna fishery, the ability for recreational fishermen to use
    fishing gear identical to commercial gear.
        Now, by comparison, we have the 169-page Magnuson Act, the
    primary governing marine fisheries management in Federal
    waters, and is considered by many to be the gold standard in
    worldwide fisheries management guidance. The requirements of
    the MSA and the 10 national standards contained in the Act
    mandate that the councils protect fish stocks and their
    ecosystems, maintain sustainable fisheries and the communities
    that depend on them, promote safety at sea, and also ensure the
    long-term socioeconomic benefits to commercial and recreational
    fisheries and the nation as a whole.
        MSA further mandates that management be an open,
    transparent, and robust process that is reliant on science and
    collaboration with stakeholders and allowing for extensive
    public input.
        Lastly, while not exactly nimble, Magnuson does provide for
    regulatory flexibility in the face of change, including climate
    change.
        Under the authority of the MSA, also late in 2015, the New
    England Council began the development of a discretionary, not a
    mandatory, action to protect vulnerable deep sea ecosystems,
    including corals and their habitat. This process, over the
    course of many years, included dozens of open and public
    meetings of the Council and its committees, as well as
    extensive socioeconomic analysis, including NEPA.
        On July 26, 2012, the Omnibus Deep Sea Coral Amendment went
    into effect. The document, all 600-plus pages, detailed the
    rationale behind designating an area of 25,153 square miles,
    five times bigger than the monument, for protection of deep sea
    ecosystems. More importantly, the amendment also considered
    both intended and unintended consequences to stakeholders, as
    well. A freeze-the-footprint approach allowed historical
    fishing grounds to remain accessible to fishermen, which in
    turn maintained the socioeconomic benefits to the nation as a
    whole, while also protecting corals.
        In summary, it should be obvious that the Antiquities and
    Magnuson Acts have very different requirements. Antiquities
    allows an individual, the President, to declare a national
    monument with little or no public involvement. The only
    requirement of the Act limits the size of a monument to the
    smallest area compatible with proper care and management. And
    given that the Antiquities Act has been used to proclaim four
    monuments in the Western Pacific Ocean that cover 1,182,717
    square miles, even the phrase ``smallest compatible'' is left
    to individual interpretation.
        Conversely, Magnuson is without question a more deliberate
    process with multiple steps at many levels. The process is very
    thorough, and can be quite lengthy in order to meet all the
    requirements of Magnuson. However, in contrast to Antiquities,
    Magnuson mandates that an open, transparent, and robust public
    process must be used, even in the smallest action, and thus
    should not be over-ridden in favor of a non-public process
    better suited to protect shards of pottery.
        That ends my oral presentation, Mr. Chairman. My written
    comments are in your binder, and I am happy to answer any
    questions on my presentation. Or if you want to wander into
    America the Beautiful, I am fine with that, too.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Reid follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Eric Reid, Fishing Industry Consultant

        I am a Fishing Industry Consultant based in Point Judith RI. Prior
    to that I spent over 50 years in both recreational and primarily the
    commercial fishing industry. Currently, I am also a third term member
    and Chair of the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC).
    Although my testimony today may include information in publicly
    available documents produced by NEFMC and others, my comments and
    opinions are my own.
        My experience on the topic at hand is with the implementation of
    both the Antiquities Act of 1906 (AA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    and Conservation Management Act (MSA) in Federal Waters particularly in
    Southern New England and the Mid Atlantic.
        Starting with the older of the two, the AA is a one page document
    that does provide in Section 2 ``That the President of the United
    States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public
    proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures,
    and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated
    upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United
    States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof
    parcels of land, the limits of which shall be confined to the smallest
    area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be
    protected.''
        The Act does not require the President to produce an evidentiary
    record nor follow specific procedures and analysis such as the
    Administrative Procedures Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA)and others including the MSA.
        On September 16, 2016, the President used this Act to designate the
    Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument (Monument) located in
    the Atlantic Ocean southeast of New England. The process that was used
    to develop the Monument began on September 15, 2015 in Providence, RI
    at a ``town hall'' meeting. This was the only public meeting on the
    issue. At that time the Monument was only an idea and lacked any clear
    shape, form or detail making any specific or informative comments
    difficult at best. The meeting was attended by a wide variety of
    interested parties who were allowed 2 minutes to provide oral comments
    during the two hours dedicated to the meeting.
        After that event, only a few small meetings were held by the
    Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) but still without any
    geographic, spatial, or temporal data and detail.
        On August 8, 2016 a proposal was presented to the public that only
    included a picture of the area under consideration and location
    information. Again, public input was hampered given the lack of details
    and the evidentiary record and analysis is unknown.
        Thirty-nine days later the Monument was proclaimed. The process was
    one year and one day long start to finish. The Monument has two
    separate areas that total 4,914 square miles and includes several
    prohibitions on extractive activities such as mining, oil/gas
    operations, etc.
        Also, commercial fishing of any kind, with a temporary exemption
    for lobster/crab pot fishing which has now expired, is prohibited in
    the Monument. However, Recreational fishing is allowed. This includes,
    particularly in the Highly Migratory Species fisheries such as tuna,
    the ability for recreational fishermen to use fishing gear identical to
    commercial gear.
        Aside from the prohibitions listed in the declaration, a management
    plan for the Monument was required to be developed jointly between the
    Departments of Interior and Commerce within three years of the
    proclamation. Seven years later, draft management guidance is just now
    emerging.
        By comparison we have the 169-page long MSA which is the primary
    law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters and is
    considered by many to be the ``gold standard'' for worldwide fisheries
    management guidance. The requirements of the MSA and the 10 National
    Standards contained in the Act mandate that the Council(s) prevent
    overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, maintain sustainable fisheries
    and the communities that depend on them, promote safety at sea and also
    ensure the long-term socio-economic benefits to commercial and
    recreational fisheries and the Nation as a whole. The MSA further
    mandates that management be an open, transparent, and robust process
    that is reliant on science and collaboration with fisheries and other
    stakeholders and allowing for extensive public input. Lastly. while not
    exactly nimble, the MSA does provide for regulatory flexibility in the
    face of change, including climate change.
        Under the authority of MSA in late 2015 the NEFMC began, in
    earnest, the development of a discretionary not mandatory action to
    protect vulnerable deep sea ecosystems including corals and their
    habitat. Over the course of almost 4 years including dozens of public
    Council, committee, advisory panel and plan development team meetings
    plus extensive scientific and socio-economic analysis include NEPA and,
    of course the MSA and the 10 National Standards the Omnibus Deep Sea
    Coral Amendment was approved for submittal to NOAA for final vetting
    and approval. (Attachment 3) The document itself is 566 pages plus 8
    appendices long detailing the rationale behind designating an area of
    25,153 square miles, five times larger that the Monument, for
    protection of vulnerable deep sea ecosystems including corals. More
    importantly, the Amendment also considered both the intended and
    unintended consequences to stakeholders as well. A ``freeze the
    footprint'' approach allowed historical fishing grounds to remain
    accessible to fishermen which, in turn, maintained the socioeconomic
    benefits to the Nation as a whole.
        On July 26, 2021, the Omnibus Deep Sea Coral went into effect.
    (Attachment 4)
        In summary, in the two cases above it should be obvious that the
    Antiquities Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act have very different requirements. The AA allows an
    individual, the President, to declare a National Monument. This can be
    done with little or no public involvement other than the proclamation
    itself. The only requirement of the AA limits the size of a Monument to
    ``in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with
    proper care and management of the objects to be protected''. Given that
    the AA has been used to proclaim four National Monuments in the Western
    Pacific Ocean that cover 1,182,717 square miles, even the phrase
    ``smallest compatible'' is left to individual interpretation.
        Conversely, the MSA is without question a more deliberate process
    with multiple steps at many levels. As shown in the Omnibus Deep Sea
    Coral Amendment, the process is very thorough and can be quite lengthy
    in order to meet all the requirements of MSA and the National
    Standards. However, in contrast to the AA, Magnuson mandates that an
    open, transparent, and robust public process must be used even in the
    smallest action.

                                     ______

     Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Eric Reid, Fishing Industry
                                   Consultant

                 Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

        Question 1. In your testimony, you describe the shallow canyon head
    areas less than ``300 fathoms'' (1800 feet depth) of the Northeast
    Canyons Marine National Monument as a ``gently sloping mud pit.'' Maps
    and documentation produced by the Fisheries Management Council, on
    which you serve as Chair, demonstrate the presence of complex habitats,
    outcrops, and attached species sensitive to disturbance, occurring in
    those areas. There is also evidence that trap gear used in trap
    fisheries report coral as bycatch.

        1a) Are you aware of these Fisheries Management Council produced
    maps and documentation?

        Answer. Yes, I am aware that a series of maps and documentation
    were produced. I was not the Chair of the Council at that time.

        1b) Can you clarify your statement that the canyon heads are ``mud
    pits''?

        Answer. In my testimony I clearly referenced the Plateau located
    inshore of and shallower than the canyon heads. This area is primarily
    mud, slit and sand and has been commercially fished for decades.

        Question 2. You suggest the Fishery Management Council deep-sea
    coral amendments protect an area larger than the Monument. These
    amendments are valuable actions, but unlike the Magnuson Stevens Act
    (MSA) authorities used for these designations, protections from
    Monument designation are in perpetuity.

        2a) Is it true that the Fishery Management Council designations
    utilize the discretionary deep-sea coral provisions under the MSA?

        Answer. Yes, Both the NEFMC and the MAFMC used discretionary
    action.

        2b) Since these designations are not considered essential fish
    habitat, do they have any requirements for consultation to other
    agencies for future non-fishing related impacts, like oil-gas and
    mineral mining?

        Answer. Regardless of whether the areas are EFH or not, the MSA
    does not grant the authority to manage anything other than want is
    mandated by that Act to the RFMO's.

        2c) Is access to these areas for fishing anything more than a
    framework amendment hidden under Fisheries Management Council action?

        Answer. What is implied by this question? In both my testimonies
    (written and oral) I outlined the process for the use of the
    Antiquities Act ( AA) as well as MSA. The AA of 1906 has been used to
    override the MSA. Which makes the question irrelevant.

        Question 3. In your testimony, you note the severe economic and
    social consequences of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine
    National Monument designation, along with resultant needs to hunt for
    new fishing grounds, gear conflicts, and problems with safety at sea.
    However, published economic analyses (see J. Lynham, 2022, Scientific
    Reports, 12:917) concluded ``little if any'' economic disruption to
    squid/butterfish, mackerel, and tuna fisheries around the Monument. The
    brief reopening of the Monument to fishing by President Donald Trump
    was also found to provide little tangible economic benefits to the
    fisheries.

        3a) What evidence is there of negative economic and social impacts
    directly resulting from Monument designation? Please include
    appropriate citations.

        Answer. What I noted was the loss of opportunity as well as
    hunting, gear conflicts and safety at sea. Even the Author (J. Lynham)
    notes in his first sentence ``Evaluation of the economic impacts of
    marine protected areas is hampered by the fact that it is impossible to
    observe what would have happened if the protected area had never been
    closed to fishing.'' The methods used are not specific to the fleet of
    boats that traditionally fished in the offshore grounds but a
    conglomeration of the entire coast. The vessels from the Mid Atlantic
    were only used as a control and not an effected entity even though they
    fish in the offshore grounds as well. A major offshore fishery for
    (Illex illecebrosus) Squid was not even considered. Finally, the used
    of AIS as a tracking mechanism is interesting. The use of AIS is only
    required on vessels greater than 65 feet in length and is only
    mandatory to be turned on within 12 miles of the coast. This certainly
    should raise some question as to the validity of the work.

                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Reid. I now recognize
    the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her 5 minutes.
        Ms. Stansbury.
        Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    welcome and say thank you to all of our witnesses, especially I
    know some of you have traveled great distances to be here with
    us today, and we do very much appreciate it.
        Mr. Aila, I want to focus a little bit more on your
    testimony and ask some additional questions. I know today a
    focus in this hearing has been around the Pacific Remote
    Islands effort, and I know that you are a member of the
    coalition that helped to initiate the nomination for the
    expansion of this monument. And I wonder if you could tell us
    more about why this is an important action for the
    Administration to take. Why did you nominate this particular
    place, and who are some of the groups that are involved in this
    process?
        Mr. Aila. Thank you very much for that question. Groups
    range from individuals, to mothers, to PTA staff, and just a
    wide range of people who actually believe that the expansion,
    and the expansion is really around two sets of islands, Howland
    Baker and Palmyra. The other three areas are already protected
    out to 200 miles. That is all that we are talking about right
    now.
        Some of the most unknown areas in the world, we only know
    that there are about 98 seamounts. There is so much science,
    there is so much more knowledge that PRI has in store for we as
    a people. It is one of the most remote places, where science
    can be done to have a control so that we can measure changes
    that are occurring in other places of the world, in other
    oceans of the world. That, in and of itself--it has megafauna,
    it has birds.
        We teach our children about the nitrogen cycle, seabirds
    that travel thousands of miles to feed and then come back to
    the islands to lay their nests. And their poop now provides
    nitrogen for the coastal lands. As an environmental place, it
    is one of the most remote and most promising areas to provide
    answers to us in terms of climate change, in terms of
    biocultural diversity, in terms of the benefits of Marine
    Protected Areas.
        Ms. Stansbury. And you mentioned in your testimony some of
    the specific fisheries that have declined in recent years, and
    I wonder if you could touch a little bit more on how you see
    creating and expanding this area is protecting those fisheries
    not only within the designated area, but opportunities for
    partnerships with commercial fishermen and subsistence
    fishermen to protect fisheries overall.
        Mr. Aila. Marine Protected Areas, without a doubt, produce
    more fish, produce more larva. The opportunity for ``increased
    access'' by fishermen to this area is simply to fish the
    boundaries. You mentioned 54 percent more yellowfin tuna caught
    on the boundaries of Papahanaumokuakea. That is one clear
    example.
        Could you repeat the second part of that question, please?
        Ms. Stansbury. In the previous panel, which I think you all
    were here for, we heard from our NOAA witness about the
    extensive public process that is unfolding currently, which
    includes scientific review, economic analysis, and consultation
    with the communities. So, given the evidence that we have seen,
    the other expansions of monuments and protected areas have
    helped to protect and support expanded fisheries.
        Given that, with the public process that engages fisheries
    and stakeholders, what opportunities do you see to enhance
    fisheries in the area beyond just protecting the fish
    themselves?
        Mr. Aila. Thank you for that. The fact that these islands
    are more than 1,000 miles away from either Hawaii or American
    Samoa clearly indicates that myself and my 22-foot boat can't
    go there. So, most people can't access the area. That, in and
    of itself, is good protection.
        However, how can I explain this? When you go to
    Papahanaumokuakea and you jump in the water, and this 100-pound
    fish swims up to you, literally this close, looks you in the
    eye and says, ``Who gave you permission to swim in my ocean,''
    that is an experience that is recorded in Mele, in Hula, in
    Pule, those qualities of that fish, that experience, gets
    generated to the next generation, and perpetuates culture.
        So, in the preparation of culture, you have additional
    benefits and additional protections that never make its way
    into Magnuson.
        Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, sir.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. The gentlewoman from
    American Samoa is recognized for her 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Radewagen. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Chart.]
        Let's see, before I start, and speaking as a proud Samoan
    and Native Hawaiian as well, I wanted to show just how much the
    Biden administration is taking from Native Samoans and other
    Indigenous people in the Pacific Islands in expanding the
    PRIMNM, or the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument.
    We will lose nearly all USC's EEZs in the Pacific. And at this
    critical time, with China gaining a real serious foothold in
    this region, the United States is going to quickly become
    nothing more than a passive bystander in the world's largest
    fishery.
        In the previous panel, Secretary Bavishi mentioned that
    they are working with the governors of the Northern Marianas,
    Guam, and American Samoa, which is really very good. I just
    wanted to add that I believe these three governors are united
    in being against the expansion. And interestingly enough, it is
    a very bipartisan effort. Two of those governors are Democrats
    and one governor is a Republican. I believe we do have a letter
    from all of them, as well.
        But I would like to applaud NOAA's efforts toward
    conservation, and share the desire to protect and preserve our
    nation's marine environment and natural resources, especially
    in the Pacific region. American Samoa is my home, after all.
        The cannery has been the economic foundation of the island
    for over half a century. Further fishing restraints will topple
    the industry, and we are a one-industry economy. And along with
    that toppling of the industry, our economy goes down the drain,
    period.
        We have the best fisheries management in the world. We can
    find reasonable accommodations to serve the needs of
    conservation and food security to protect our kids' school
    lunch program, our military rations, and our local American
    Samoan community, which depends on our tuna exports.
        Mr. Gibbons-Fly, your written testimony talks about the
    cumulative effects of multiple actions on the industry and the
    economy of American Samoa. Can you provide some specific
    examples of such impacts?
        Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Certainly, thank you very much for the
    question.
        With respect to the current national marine monuments, they
    started out at 50 miles around most of the islands, and they
    were expanded to 200 miles in many of the islands, and now
    there is a proposal to expand it, the rest of those, out to 200
    miles.
        And I did note the comment from the Assistant Secretary
    that NOAA has made no decision about commercial fishing within
    the monument. But everything I have read and everything I have
    heard on this suggests extremely strongly that that is the
    intention of this Administration, to extend those boundaries
    out.
        In terms of the cumulative impacts, on the map behind you
    that southernmost red area represents Jarvis Island, which was
    closed in its entirety in 2014 with the expansion of the
    national monument in that region. That, historically, had been
    one of the richest fishing grounds for the tuna purse seine
    fleet, and we have now been excluded completely from that area.
        You will note that it is immediately adjacent to the EEZ of
    Kiribati. Kiribati licenses up to 15 Chinese large purse seine
    vessels that can fish right across that line from where the
    U.S. fleet is prohibited from fishing. So, any of the
    conservation benefits that accumulate as a result of no fishing
    by the U.S. fleet, if that fish migrates across the line to
    Kiribati, it is China that catches that fish. It is not U.S.
    vessels.
        Furthermore, with respect to the cumulative impacts, I know
    that with respect to the Hawaii longline fleet, the cumulative
    effect of the closure of the expansion of both the Northwest
    Hawaiian Islands Monument and the Pacific Remote Islands Marine
    National Monument resulted in a loss of their historical
    fishing grounds that accounted for approximately 22 percent of
    their catch. That is just with respect to the monuments.
        Then we have the increasingly strict regulatory
    environment, both domestic and international. We can't fish on
    fish aggregating devices for 3 months out of the year. We can't
    fish on fish aggregating devices on the high seas for another 2
    months. It is as if there is a ratchet that is being cranked,
    and it only goes one way. It only gets tighter, and tighter,
    and tighter. It never goes back the other way.
        And each one of these actions is justified, as I said in
    both my written and oral testimony, ``Well, the impact will be
    minimal.'' Crank the ratchet. ``The impact will be minimal.''
    Crank the ratchet. But the cumulative effect, it is killing us.
    It really is killing us.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. I am out of time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to say one last little
    point, and that is that, with regard to this, 51 percent of
    this 2 million-square-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone has
    been designated by a Presidential Proclamation. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. The gentleman from
    Hawaii, Mr. Case, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair.
        Mr. Gibbons-Fly, good to see you again. I think we were
    talking about the South Pacific Tuna Treaty when last you were
    here. On that one you, me, and my colleague, Mrs. Radewagen,
    are completely aligned, and we definitely want to give you
    continued access to those areas covered by the treaty. So, we
    hope to close that soon.
        The implication has been, externally in some cases, that
    NOAA and its sanctuary designation evaluation has not fully
    accounted for and listened to the concerns of the various
    parties. Do you feel that you have been able to provide all
    information that you want to provide, that you have been able
    to access all of the public hearings, all of the other
    information, and that you have had your say with NOAA? I want
    to know whether you think that or not.
        And if you don't, I want specific recommendations to NOAA
    as to how your views can be heard.
        Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Thank you very much for that question and,
    yes, thank you for your support. I did not have a chance during
    the previous hearing to thank you for your support for our
    industry as support for the legislation introduced by
    Congresswoman Radewagen and yourself.
        In response to your question, the sole input that my
    organization has had into the process up to date has been to
    submit comments in response to a Federal Register notice. On
    April 18, NOAA published a Federal Register notice, a scoping
    document for the Environmental Impact Statement to establish
    the sanctuary. We submitted written comments in response to
    that notice, and those comments, I believe, were circulated
    with the written testimony that I submitted. That is the sole
    input that my organization has had into this process.
        I have not had any input or interaction directly with any
    officials at NOAA up to this point. We understand that there
    will be likely opportunities for that down the road.
        Mr. Case. Well, there is a process going on. You responded
    to the Federal Register. You had an opportunity to participate
    in the public hearings and the scoping, et cetera. You are
    going to have an opportunity to comment on whatever----
        Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, we have submitted written comments.
    I don't know what the process is going forward to have further
    input.
        Mr. Case. Here is my concern, sir.
        Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes.
        Mr. Case. I just want to make sure that you don't come back
    in 6 months or whenever it is and say that you didn't have an
    opportunity to be heard. So, if you feel you are not having an
    opportunity to be heard, I certainly will help you to do that,
    because I don't want the argument that somehow people are
    getting excluded from this process.
        I believe this has been a tremendously inclusive process,
    exhaustively inclusive process, 57,000 comments tells some of
    that story. So, obviously, the public is being given an
    opportunity to be heard.
        You have serious concerns. You have a position, and I don't
    want you to come back and say you haven't been heard. That is
    my comment there. I just leave it at that, because I need to
    move on. So, tell me if that is the case, and I personally will
    try to deal with that.
        Mr. Aila, this sounds like deja vu all over again, to be
    honest. I feel like we are back in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010
    on Papahanaumokuakea. I heard that the Hawaii longliners
    industry was going to crash. I heard that creating the monument
    was going to fundamentally somehow alter the course of the sea
    and there weren't going to be as many fish. And the history
    doesn't prove that.
        I am looking at my stats, which show that in 2000 the
    Hawaii Longliners Association had 123 boats. Today, they have
    147 boats out there. So, obviously, they are not crashing as a
    result of the creation of this monument.
        We have had a number of scientific studies that have shown,
    transference, I think, is the term of art, meaning that because
    we increase biodiversity, because we increase fish stock there
    actually was a corresponding increase in fish stock beyond the
    monuments that were, of course, accessible to our longliners.
        I mean, what is your comment on the fear that somehow a
    sanctuary designation is going to crash industries and create
    great disruption to fish stocks?
        Mr. Aila. My experience, Representative Case, is that it
    hasn't. The Hawaii tuna longline boat fishery has met its quota
    every year since the protections went in place. Not only do
    they meet their quota catching their quota in Hawaiian waters
    or the Hawaii quota that is assigned to Hawaii, they also are
    able to catch, from the same areas, fish to satisfy the quota
    from the Pacific territories: American Samoa, Guam, CNMI. They
    are able to meet these quotas every year.
        So, it is very difficult for me to understand how they can
    say that it is bad for them.
        And they meet these quotas early because they are trying to
    meet the high Christmas prices.
        Mr. Case. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Aila. Thank you.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii.
        Ms. Kargi, based upon your experiences and your livelihood
    up in Alaska, how has the CDQ program benefited the
    participating Native communities?
        Ms. Kargi. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chair.
        The CDQ program, we do have one board member and several
    staff in each of our 20 villages, and they bring the issues to
    our attention. And from there we look to see if there is a
    government program that can help. And if not, then we develop
    ideas, and then our board directs us to look into programs.
        And a lot of the programs that we provide to our
    communities or our subsistence activities, those are very
    popular. And for one example, we have a People Propel Program
    that helps residents acquire equipment like ATVs, snow
    machines, and outboard motors. And with that influx that comes
    into the villages, they have to be maintained and repaired, so
    we provide mechanic and welder shops, and they help maintain
    this equipment.
        We don't have a Whole Foods or Safeway in rural Alaska, so
    we get our meat by living off the land and the water.
    Subsistence is very expensive. You have to buy guns,
    ammunitions, nets, expensive fuel, and transportation. Food
    stamps don't pay for these things, so our access to the Bering
    Sea for CVRF provides access to food for our residents.
        Dr. Gosar. The CDQ program is a vital part of coastal
    Alaska's economy. How would a potential sanctuary designation
    impact CVRF and the communities that you serve?
        Ms. Kargi. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fisheries are
    sustainable, and that fishing communities are treated fairly,
    and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act does not require
    sustainability or fairness.
        The Bering Sea fisheries funds our programs. So, if the
    Bering Sea is not managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, then
    our programs are at risk.
        Dr. Gosar. Got you.
        Mr. Reid, if you had a moment to talk about the sanctuary
    in your experiences, what would it be? What kind of
    professional courtesy would you extend to the sanctuary?
        Mr. Reid. The sanctuary, Mr. Chairman, or the monument in
    the Atlantic, sir?
        Dr. Gosar. The monument.
        Mr. Reid. Professional courtesy?
        Dr. Gosar. What would you say? What would be your comments
    to them after your experience on the East Coast?
        Mr. Reid. Well, I am assuming that my comments would not be
    all that professional or courteous, Mr. Chairman.
        The issue with the monument, there has been a lot of
    discussion about the value or the analysis of things that are
    allowed in the monument. What is not considered is unintended
    consequences.
        When fishermen are excluded from one area, they are not
    going to just go home and stay home. They are going to go
    fishing in another area which may be already occupied by other
    fishermen. So, you have the potential for gear conflicts and
    other adverse effects to the industry.
        I mean, you have to go hunting. We go hunting for things.
    And the more you have to hunt, the further you have to travel.
    What is not considered is the cost of that. It reduces safety
    at sea, it increases operating costs. And in some cases, it can
    also be detrimental to fisheries product that are landed
    shoreside.
        So, I hope that answers your question, but----
        Dr. Gosar. It does.
        Coming from Arizona, we have lots of national monuments and
    withdrawal areas. So, I can tell you it is a huge impact on a
    state to have to take.
        My next thing is I want to ask each one of you. What was
    the question you came prepared today to be asked, and what was
    the answer?
        So, if we would start with you, Mr. Fly, we would go from
    there.
        Mr. Gibbons-Fly. If I understand the question correctly,
    what question would I want to have been asked that we haven't
    heard asked yet?
        Dr. Gosar. Yes, and what is the answer?
        Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, I think we did hear some of the
    questions that I wanted to hear asked of the Assistant
    Secretary, and that is what data NOAA used to determine the
    need to expand protections for highly migratory species from 50
    miles out to 200 miles. What data did they take into account
    with respect to the potential impact on the economy of American
    Samoa? And how will that be weighed as part of their decision-
    making process?
        I am sure there are other questions out there that we could
    think of, but I think those, at least to me, are the two
    critical questions that I would like to know more about.
        And in response to Mr. Case's comments, I would like to
    know what the future process will be for my organization and
    others to have more input into this process other than just
    submitting written comments. When we submitted those comments
    we didn't have a lot of the information we have now about the
    potential impact and this very specific data that NOAA provided
    for the catches within the PRIA EEZ.
        I am sorry, I don't mean to monopolize the time. I will
    stop there.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
        Ms. Kargi?
        Ms. Kargi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So, listening to the previous witness, Ms. Bavishi from
    NOAA, I would like to know how NOAA outreached to all of these
    65 communities in remote, rural Alaska.
        Oftentimes, we talk to staffers all the way back here in
    DC, and they say, ``Yes, I have been to Alaska, I have been to
    hub communities known as Juneau, Fairbanks, and Anchorage,
    Kenai, Soldotna,'' but you don't often hear of them traveling
    to rural Alaska. So, I would like to know what NOAA has done as
    far as outreach efforts and getting input from the other 64
    communities all along the western coast of Alaska. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, I definitely am addicted to the life below
    zero. I will tell you that. It is not always Alaska, I will
    tell you that.
        Mr. Aila?
        Mr. Aila. Yes, Chair Gosar, I would have hoped that you had
    asked the question of how can Congress help mitigate some of
    the concerns that you hear expressed by both sides at the
    table, and my answer would be Congress has the power to provide
    tax breaks to the cannery in American Samoa. They just lost
    their tax break.
        So, reinstall their tax break, help the cannery stay
    successful, irregardless of how much fish they get to harvest.
    And then the people of American Samoa can be successful and be
    happy, and we can protect the resources at the same time. Thank
    you very much for the question.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Reid?
        Mr. Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of
    questions, but most of them have already been asked. And I had
    a lot of answers to a lot of questions already.
        But the question I was really hoping would be asked is what
    other protection has been done under Magnuson in the Atlantic
    to protect the deep sea coral ecosystems that were purported in
    the Antiquities Act? And the answer to that would be in the
    Mid-Atlantic they used the Magnuson-Stevens Act under a similar
    process as New England to protect 41,444 additional square
    miles.
        And as a subset to that question, how much of the monument
    is covered in Magnuson actions? And the answer to that, sir, is
    under the New England deep sea count, Deep Sea Amendment, 82
    percent of the monument is encompassed in that. And when you
    include additional actions by the Mid-Atlantic Council, the
    total rises to 88 percent.
        So, my question really is, why can't I have back that 12
    percent? It has nothing to do with corals. It has nothing to do
    with deep sea ecosystems. It is the inshore portion of that
    monument that is from about 50 fathoms out to about 300 fathoms
    of water, which is essentially a gently sloping mud pit. And
    there are no objects of particular interest to anybody except
    for the commercial fishing industry, which has historically
    been fishing there for over 50 years. And even the NGOs say
    that area is still pristine.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank everybody. I guess my last comment I
    would say is, it seems like the system is actually working. And
    then my question to the Assistant Secretary, why wouldn't you
    start with a pilot program? Why wouldn't you start there?
    Because it seems awful problematic when you just do this large-
    scale ecosystem without understanding the full ramifications of
    it.
        Arizona has taken it on the chin over, and over, and over
    again from administration after administration in regards here.
    So, I would love to see something more to scale.
        Members of the Committee may have more additional questions
    for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in
    writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must
    submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on
    September 22. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days
    for these responses.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    Subcommittee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar

                        American Sword & Tuna Harvesters

                                 Washington, DC

                                                    June 29, 2021

    The Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary
    Department of the Interior
    1849 C Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20240

        Dear Secretary Haaland:

        According to recent reports in the Washington Post, your Department
    sent a confidential memo to the White House urging a recission of
    former President Trump's Proclamation 10049 from June 5, 2020, which
    reopened the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument
    to commercial fishing.
        As companies that take part in fishing off the waters of New
    England and the Mid-Atlantic, we would like to take this opportunity to
    share some of our concerns.
        Through the years, we have made it clear that the management
    decisions that affect our livelihoods should be made through
    democratic, science-driven processes that encourage stakeholder
    engagement. We were therefore encouraged by the Executive Order
    President Biden signed on Inauguration Day stating it is ``the policy
    of my Administration to listen to the science . . .''.
        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
    Highly Migratory Species Division of NOAA adhering to the international
    obligations created by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act and 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. It is important to note
    that every single fishery management council and NOAA oppose regulating
    fisheries in this manner.
        We understand the Biden-Harris Administration position that former
    President Trump illegally subverted former President Obama's authority
    under the Antiquities Act to declare the marine monument. However, in
    light of the hardship that harvesters of swordfish, tuna, and squid
    will face, in addition to potential harm to lobster and crab producers
    when the original seven-year moratorium runs out, we ask that the
    damage done to our industry due to COVID-19 and the subsequent
    government-mandated closure of restaurants, be considered in any
    recommendations to the White House.
        Also keep in mind the seafood harvesters who don't necessarily fish
    in the monument area, such as scallopers--the nation's most valuable
    federally managed fishery--who will be negatively affected when those
    displaced by the ban move to their areas to fish.
        We ask that if you advise a recission of last year's proclamation,
    that you recommend a three-year moratorium before the commercial
    fishing ban is re-imposed. This will provide an opportunity for the
    hard-working men and women in our seaports to recoup some of the losses
    these fishing families endured due to COVID-19 related closures. And,
    in keeping with President Biden's January 20, 2021 Executive Order on
    Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
    Tackle the Climate Crisis, which stated that ``the Federal Government
    must be guided by the best science and be protected by processes that
    ensure the integrity of Federal decision-making'', this would allow our
    industry some time to commission a scientific review of commercial and
    recreational fishing, and its impact on the area of the monument, which
    to date has not been done.
        A three-year moratorium on the re-imposition of the commercial
    fishing ban allows the Biden-Harris Administration to rescind the Trump
    Administration action, as well as allowing our industry to re-coup our
    losses suffered during COVID-19.
        In the past few years, we had the opportunity to meet directly your
    two immediate predecessors. Unfortunately, before you were confirmed by
    the Senate, representatives of our fisheries were only granted five
    minutes each on a one-hour phone call with Interior staff to defend our
    livelihoods.
        We respectfully request that you meet with us in-person before the
    White House considers any recommendation from the Department concerning
    the commercial fishing ban.
        We look forward to speaking more about this with you and your
    staff.

                Sincerely,

            Jim Budi (ret.),              Scot Drainowicz,
            Eagle Eye Fishing Corp.       Eagle Eye II Corp
            Beaufort, SC                  Swampscott, FL

            James Busse,                  Patrick Fehily,
            Seafood Atlantic Inc.         FV White Water, LLC
            Cape Canaveral, FL            Lavallette, NJ

            John Caldwell,                Tommy Forte,
            Eagle Eye II Corp.            Pescaderia Catano
            Melbourne, FL                 Catano, PR

            William A. Cox,               Michael Foy,
            Yonges Island Fish Company    FV Rebel Lady
            Yonges Island, SC             San Juan, PR

            Tony Geisman,                 Kevin McLaughlin,
            Dei Gratia Inc.               Fairhaven Shipyard North
            Charleston, SC                Fairhaven, MA

            Pat Kornahrens,               Gary Mills,
            FV Yellowfin Corp             Mills Marine
            Marathon, FL                  Valrico, FL

            Richard Kornahens,            Charlie Nagle,
            White Water Seafood           John Nagle Co.
            Duck Key, FL                  Boston, MA

            Michael Machado,              Fred Osborne,
            Boston Sword & Tuna           Marine Electric
            Boston, MA                    New Bedford, MA

            Tim Malley (ret.),            George Purmont,
            Osprey One Fisheries          Pura Vida Inc.
            Hingham, MA                   Little Compton, RI

            Putnam MacLean,
            Eagle Eye Fishing Co.
            Marshfield, MA

                                     ______

                              CITY OF NEW BEDFORD

                          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Mayor

                                                    October 2, 2023

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Hon. Paul Gosar, Chairman
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Westerman and Subcommittee Chairman Gosar:

        Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony in conjunction
    with the Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigation's hearing entitled
    ``Examining Barriers to Access in Federal Waters: A Closer Look at the
    Marine Sanctuary and Monument System.''
        The management of marine fisheries in federal waters within the
    Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument is a matter of
    vital importance to the Port of New Bedford, Massachusetts--America's
    top-valued commercial fishing port.
        As Mayor of the City of New Bedford and the Chairman of the New
    Bedford Port Authority, I have followed closely the Marine Sanctuary
    and Monuments policy discussion since the proposal for a Northeast
    Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument first came to light in
    2016; and I have shared my views with a broad array of federal entities
    including the White House Council on Environmental Quality, NOAA
    Fisheries, and Congress.
        As the Subcommittee undertakes its assessment of federal policy in
    this area, I encourage members to take into account the unique role
    that New Bedford plays nationally in commercial fishing. Our harbor
    serves not only the needs of the vessels that call New Bedford their
    home port, but also the needs of numerous East Coast vessels from North
    Carolina to Maine which land their catch in our port at different times
    during each fishing season. The proper management of our nation's
    marine fisheries is therefore crucial to the vitality of our port and
    our local and regional economy, but also to the nation, as we service
    the needs of an industry whose vessels operate up and down nearly the
    entirety of the East Coast.
        The position of the Port and City of New Bedford has been
    consistent since 2016. We maintain that marine fisheries in federal
    waters everywhere, including in national monuments, should be managed
    under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act
    (MSA), the 169-page long legal instrument that governs marine fisheries
    management in U.S. federal waters. Originally enacted in 1976, the MSA
    has been amended and improved by several Congresses in its nearly 50-
    year history and is considered by many worldwide to be the ``gold
    standard'' for fisheries management.
        The MSA and its accompanying ten National Standards establish
    specific requirements for the eight regional Fishery Management
    Councils. These requirements compel the Councils to address several key
    objectives, which include preventing overfishing, facilitating the
    recovery of overfished stocks, promoting the sustainability of
    fisheries and the communities dependent on them, enhancing safety at
    sea, and ensuring the long-term socio-economic benefits for both
    commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as the entire nation.
        The MSA emphasizes that the management process should adhere to
    principles of openness, transparency, and robustness. It relies on
    scientific input and fosters collaboration with fisheries and various
    stakeholders while allowing for extensive public engagement and input.
    Importantly, the MSA does allow for regulatory adaptability in response
    to changing circumstances, including the challenges posed by climate
    change.
        In contrast, the Antiquities Act of 1906 (AA) is a single page.
    Section 2 of this Act grants the President of the United States the
    authority to publicly proclaim historic landmarks, historic and
    prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific
    significance situated on government-owned or controlled lands, as
    national monuments. The President is also empowered to set aside
    portions of land within these monuments, with the caveat that the
    boundaries must be limited to the smallest area necessary for the
    proper preservation and management of the protected objects.
        Notably, the Antiquities Act does not impose a requirement on the
    President to create an evidentiary record or follow specific procedures
    and analyses akin to those mandated by the Administrative Procedures
    Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and others,
    including the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).

        The following side-by-side comparison of how the Antiquities Act
    and the Magnuson-Stevens Act were applied to the waters comprising the
    Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument are
    illuminating and provide a clear example of why the Antiquities Act
    pales in comparison to the MSA in appropriateness for the management of
    marine fisheries.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Management by Antiquities Act      Management by Magnuson-Stevens Act
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 16, 2016, the           Under the authority of the Magnuson-
     President employed the Antiquities   Stevens Fishery Conservation and
     Act to establish the Northeast       Management Act (MSA), in late
     Canyons and Seamounts Marine         2015, the New England Fishery
     National Monument (Monument) in      Management Council (NEFMC)
     the Atlantic Ocean, located to the   initiated a comprehensive effort
     southeast of New England. The        to develop a discretionary, non-
     process for creating this Monument   mandatory measure aimed at
     commenced on September 15, 2015,     safeguarding fragile deep-sea
     with a ``town hall'' meeting held    ecosystems, including corals and
     in Providence, RI. Notably, this     their habitats.
     was the sole public meeting on the
     matter at that time. During this
     initial meeting, the Monument was
     merely a conceptual idea, devoid
     of any defined shape, structure,
     or specifics. Consequently,
     providing specific or informative
     feedback was challenging at best.
     Attendees at the meeting,
     representing a wide range of
     interested parties, were allotted
     a brief two-minute window to
     deliver oral comments, despite the
     meeting lasting two hours.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following this event, the Council    This extensive undertaking spanned
     on Environmental Quality (CEQ)       nearly four years and encompassed
     organized only a few smaller         numerous public Council meetings,
     meetings, which still lacked         committee sessions, advisory panel
     essential geographic, spatial, or    gatherings, and plan development
     temporal data and details.           team meetings. It also involved in-
                                          depth scientific and socio-
                                          economic analyses, incorporating
                                          procedures such as the National
                                          Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
                                          and adhering to the MSA and its
                                          ten National Standards.
                                          Ultimately, this effort resulted
                                          in the approval of the Omnibus
                                          Deep-Sea Coral Amendment for
                                          submission to the National Oceanic
                                          and Atmospheric Administration
                                          (NOAA) for final review and
                                          approval.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 8, 2016, a proposal was    The Amendment itself comprises 566
     presented to the public,             pages along with eight appendices,
     comprising solely a picture of the   providing a thorough justification
     area under consideration and         for designating an area spanning
     location information. Once again,    25,153 square miles for the
     the lack of detailed information     protection of vulnerable deep-sea
     hindered public input, and the       ecosystems, including corals.
     details of the evidentiary record    Importantly, the Amendment also
     and analysis remained undisclosed.   considered both the intended and
                                          unintended consequences for
                                          various stakeholders. A ``freeze
                                          the footprint'' approach was
                                          adopted, preserving access to
                                          historical fishing grounds for
                                          fishermen, thereby sustaining
                                          socio-economic benefits for the
                                          entire nation.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A mere 39 days later, the Monument   On July 26, 2021, the Omnibus Deep-
     was officially designated. The       Sea Coral Amendment came into
     entire process, from inception to    effect.
     proclamation, spanned one year and
     one day. The Monument encompasses
     two distinct areas, totaling 4,914
     square miles, with numerous
     restrictions imposed on extractive
     activities, including mining and
     oil/gas operations.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, commercial fishing of any
     kind, apart from a temporary
     exemption for lobster/crab pot
     fishing (which has since expired),
     is prohibited within the Monument.
     Nevertheless, recreational fishing
     remains permitted, even extending
     to Highly Migratory Species
     fisheries like tuna, where
     recreational fishermen can use
     gear identical to that used in
     commercial fishing.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the prohibitions
     outlined in the declaration, a
     management plan for the Monument
     was supposed to be collaboratively
     developed by the Departments of
     Interior and Commerce within three
     years of its establishment.
     However, seven years later, draft
     management guidance is only now
     beginning to surface.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been developed for the express purpose
    of managing marine fisheries. The Antiquities Act was passed to give
    President Theodore Roosevelt the authority to protect American Indian
    artifacts.
        As is evident from a comparison of the texts of the MSA and the AA,
    and by the comparison of the restrictions included in the Northeast
    Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument waters, the Antiquities
    Act is simply inadequate for the proper management of marine fisheries.
        The fishery management amendments described above which were
    created under the MSA protected approximately 88% of the sea bottom,
    canyons, and sea mounts currently in the monument area. The remaining
    12% is the historic fishing grounds of the offshore lobster and red
    crab fisheries. These fisheries have been operating in this area for
    over 50 years, and yet these areas are asserted to be ``pristine'' by
    the advocates of protections within the monument area.
        Commercial fishing in the water column above the seamounts and
    canyons was historically regulated under the MSA provisions covering
    highly-migratory species such as swordfish and tuna. The management of
    these species has been successfully implemented by NOAA Fisheries until
    Presidential actions under the Antiquities Act imposed a ban on
    commercial fishing.

        The commercial fishing ban creates a number of difficulties for
    affected fisheries:

         In years when highly migratory species such as swordfish
                and tuna are traversing the monument region, our longline
                fishermen are likely to be unable to harvest their
                internationally-negotiated quotes.

         Harvesters targeting quid, butterfish, and other fisheries
                are forced to travel for hours across the monument unable
                to fish until they exit the far side of the monument
                passing schools of these species that they can easily see
                in the monument waters. This wastes time and fuel, and
                unnecessarily increases their carbon footprint.

         Although the Atlantic scallop industry--the most valuable
                federally-managed wild-caught fishery in the nation--does
                not operate in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine
                National Monument, the commercial fishing ban is moving the
                offshore lobster industry from the region and leaving them
                nowhere to go except onto scallop grounds, creating a
                potential for conflict between fisheries.

         The Atlantic red crab industry, which is sustainable and
                has brought an underutilized species to market, relieving
                pressure on over-exploited species can no longer harvest in
                areas where they have successfully harvested for decades.

        For all these reasons, I remain convinced that fisheries management
    under existing Magnuson-Stevens authority, is the most sensible
    approach to managing fishing activity within the Northeast Canyons and
    Seamounts Marine National Monument.

        Thank you again for your consideration of this important issue.

                Sincerely,

                                                  Jon Mitchell,
                                           Mayor, City of New Bedford
                                   Chairman, New Bedford Port Authority

                                     ______

                                 SAVING SEAFOOD

                                 Washington, DC

                                                    October 2, 2023

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Hon. Paul Gosar, Chairman
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Westerman and Subcommittee Chairman Gosar:

        Thank you for convening the September 19, 2023, hearing on
    Examining Barriers to Access in Federal Waters: A Closer Look at the
    Marine Sanctuary and Monument System in the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations.
        My colleagues and I at Saving Seafood have worked with the domestic
    seafood industry for years to urge the use of the provisions of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage fisheries in all Federal waters,
    including in marine monuments. When the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
    Marine National Monument was first proposed in 2016, we worked with
    numerous elected and appointed officials toward this goal, but
    ultimately, President Obama included a ban on commercial fishing in the
    monument designation.
        The difference between how members of the Trump Administration, and
    members of the Biden-Harris Administration handled examining the
    effects of the commercial fishing ban could not be more different.
        We began working with members of the Trump Administration to
    request a reversal of the commercial fishing ban in the Spring of 2017.
    This led to a June 16, 2017, meeting in Boston for affected fishing
    interests with Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, and subsequent
    meetings in Washington, DC. Secretary Zinke recommended that the
    President remove the commercial fishing ban later that year. A series
    of White House meetings began in March 2019 and continued for over a
    year, in which Administration staff requested a great deal of
    information regarding the effect of the commercial fishing ban, and
    additional data and analysis from independent respected fishery
    scientists.
        In June 2020, President Trump removed the ban on commercial
    fishing, creating fairness and parity between commercial and
    recreational fishing interests.
        In March 2021, before the Biden-Harris Administration had a
    confirmed Interior Secretary in place, two conference calls were held
    in which members of the nation's fishery management councils, and
    members of the fishing industry were given just one hour to explain
    their reasons for opposing a reimposition of the commercial fishing
    ban.
        In June 2021, after Secretary Deb Haaland was confirmed by the
    Senate, we requested a meeting with the Secretary so that members of
    the swordfish and tuna longline industry could explain why analyses
    funded by environmental interests claiming that the commercial fishing
    ban had no negative effect on their fisheries were inaccurate. Our
    letter was acknowledged via email by Shantha Ready Alonso, Director of
    the Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs (OIEA) at the
    Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior. Despite
    numerous follow up calls and emails, there was no response to the
    letter. On Columbus Day, 2021 the commercial fishing ban was reimposed.
    We received a response in December 2021. It was a form letter merely
    describing that the ban had been reimposed.
        Our nation's commercial fishing industry deserved to be heard.

                Sincerely,

                                             Robert B. Vanasse,
                                                     Executive Director

                                     ______

                                 SAVING SEAFOOD

                                 Washington, DC

    September 23, 2021--The following is an excerpt from an article
    published in National Fisherman by Dr. Roger Mann, professor of Marine
    Science at the College of William and Mary's Virginia Institute of
    Marine Science. It is based on an article published by the Journal of
    Shellfish Research. That paper, ``An Ecosystem is Not a Monument, and
    Other Challenges to Fishing in the 21st Century,'' is based on a talk
    given by Dr. Mann at the annual meeting of the National Shellfisheries
    Association.

                                     *****

           Close Quarters: Ocean Zoning Pushes Fisheries to the Brink

    Managing fisheries is no longer simply about [the Magnuson Stevens
    Act's] directives to ``conserve and manage'' a sustainable resource to
    serve the ``social and economic needs of the States.'' It is about
    managing fisheries in a changing landscape of competition for ocean
    resources, where the environment is changing faster than in living
    history, and species footprints are on the move.

    Part of this changing landscape is the creation of large, no-take MPAs,
    like the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument off the coast of Cape
    Cod. Designated by President Obama with the sweep of a pen using the
    Antiquities Act of 1906, the 4,913 square miles of the monument are now
    managed by multiple federal agencies under a bewildering patchwork of
    legislation, including Magnuson, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System
    Administration Act, the Refuge Recreation Act, Public Law 98-532, and
    Executive Order 6166. Then there is the National Marine Sanctuaries
    Act, through which the government can designate and protect marine
    areas of national significance.

    This plethora of confusing legislation lacks uniform definitions. It is
    not clear on how--or even if--MPA designations are required to be
    revisited, even when species move. In addition, it does not state who
    has precedent over whom in the management hierarchy.

    Even as questions remain over existing MPAs, activists are pushing for
    more with a ``30 x 30'' campaign to protect 30 percent of our nation's
    land, inland waters and oceans as conservation areas by 2030. But what
    is ``protected'' in this context? Is a region protected only by
    excluding fishermen through a no-take MPA? Or does the Magnuson Act
    directive to ``conserve and manage the fishery resources'' and
    ``exercise sound judgment in [their] stewardship'' rise to the level of
    protection? If so, then is not the entire exclusive economic zone
    already protected?

    MPAs are far from the only competition fishermen are facing in the
    ocean. Environmental advocacy, communications corridors, mining,
    national defense, and shipping all threaten fishermen's access to ocean
    resources. Perhaps the biggest incursion of all is offshore wind
    development: the U.S. East Coast continental shelf already has 1.7
    million acres of federal bottom under lease for offshore wind, with the
    Biden administration seemingly poised to expand such efforts along the
    Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. Offshore wind projects have a
    projected life span of 50 years, with turbine spacing restricting
    access for both commercial fishing vessels towing mobile gear and
    federal survey vessels. Stock assessment surveys will be compromised,
    resulting in reduced quotas for fishermen.

    With so many competitors muscling their way into the ocean, who will be
    the winners and losers? Over what time frames will winners emerge?
    Where does preservation of the fishing industry sit in the pecking
    order? At the bottom?

    The ``space'' for fisheries is shrinking. Commercial fishing won't be
    the largest economic player as development of our oceans continues, but
    it is historically an important part of the economic and social
    structure of coastal communities. Fisheries are based on moving species
    distributions that do not function well within fixed boundaries, like
    those being zoned for MPAs and offshore wind.

    Read the full article at National Fisherman

                                     ______

    An Ecosystem is Not a Monument, and Other Challenges to Fishing in the
    21st Century

    BioOne Digital Library, September 14, 2021 by Roger Mann

    J. of Shellfish Research, 40(2):185-190 (2021). https://doi.org/
    10.2983/035.040.0201

                                     *****

    Abstract
        The continental shelf of the United States was once the preserve of
    commercial fishermen. This is no longer the case. The exclusive
    economic zone is increasingly becoming the focus of other economically
    powerful, sometimes incompatible uses, including green energy,
    shipping, communications, mining, military exclusion zones, and
    conservation regions. These other uses generally have fixed boundaries.
    The distribution of fished species moves in relation to warming of
    shelf waters, presenting challenges to both federal regional fishery
    management councils and industry alike. There is need for continued
    engagement between user groups with respectful use of guiding science
    and legal structure to ensure reasoned access for all, and stability
    for economies that are reliant on ocean shelf resources, including the
    fishing industry.

                                     *****

        ``Which of the following is not like the others: (1) a monument,
    (2) an antiquity [defined as a `relic or monument of ancient times',
    Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language 66 (1902)],
    or (3) 5,000 square miles of land beneath the ocean?,'' wrote Chief
    Justice John Roberts. ``If you answered (3), you are not only correct
    but also a speaker of ordinary English,'' he said. ``In this case,
    however, the government has relied on the Antiquities Act of 1906 to
    designate an area of submerged land about the size of Connecticut as a
    monument--the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National
    Monument.''

        The harvest of fish from the sea is a human activity as old as
    recorded history. Transoceanic expeditions to Newfoundland Grand Banks
    in search of cod began shortly after the European discovery of North
    America and continued through the 15th and 16th centuries by French,
    Portuguese and Spanish fleets. Fishermen have long epitomized the image
    of hardy individuals seeking to make a living in freedom at sea, but
    this freedom is facing increasing stricture as the continental shelves
    and exclusive economic zones (EEZ) become the focus of multiple,
    sometimes incompatible uses. In this complex debate, fishermen and the
    fishing industry compete with economic giants, a plethora of political
    and social philosophies, and a diversity of scientific opinion.
    Fisheries are becoming the minority economic player in this debate. The
    rules of engagement dictating both survival of the fishing industry as
    a sustainable biological and economic enterprise, and the broader needs
    of society served by other ocean users are neither stable nor arguably
    responsive to the minority (fishing) constituency. The misuse of the
    Antiquities Act is but a single example. An ecosystem, defined by
    Merriam Webster as ``the complex of a community of organisms and its
    environment functioning as an ecological unit,'' is not a monument.
    There is need for continued engagement between user groups with
    respectful use of guiding science and legal structure to ensure
    reasoned access for all, and stability for economies that are reliant
    on ocean shelf resources, including the fishing industry.
        How did we get here? When did oceans become national, rather than
    international territories? When did we start zoning the ocean? Where
    will this process end, and who will be winners and losers? A little
    history provides useful context, and it starts in the North Atlantic as
    World War II came to an end.
        Iceland officially remained neutral throughout World War II, but it
    was strategically too important to North Atlantic shipping to remain
    untouched. British forces invaded Iceland on May 10, 1940. The defense
    of Iceland was transferred from Britain to the United States on July 7,
    1941, 5 months before the latter joined the Allied effort. On June 17,
    1944, Iceland ended the Act of Union with Denmark, declared
    independence, and established the Republic of Iceland. The end of World
    War II and economic support from the Marshall Plan ushered in a period
    of economic growth for Iceland. Among Iceland's most significant
    natural resources was its cod fishery, but postwar competition for this
    resources with the United Kingdom intensified, and the 1948 ``Cod
    Wars'' were characterized by fishing vessels accompanied by military
    escorts and more than one instance of vessels being rammed by
    counterparts from the opposing side. Iceland began to flex its
    proverbial muscles with respect to its marine resources, and
    sequentially extended its maritime jurisdiction from 6 to 12, and
    subsequently to 200 miles. In doing so, it set the example of a 200-
    mile EEZ that the world would eventually follow. Little did they
    realize the implications of this boundary in years to come.
        United States jurisdiction over fishery resources on continental
    shelves was codified in 1976 with passage of the Magnuson Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). To place the gravity of
    this action in context, the 200-mile EEZ footprint covers approximately
    4.42 million sq. miles, exceeding that of the entire U.S. landmass at
    approximately 3.79 million sq. miles. The MSA contains strong and
    authoritative wording. Its purpose, taken from 1996 amended
    reauthorization, is to ``provide for the conservation and management of
    the fisheries, and for other purposes,'' thus:

        (1) to take immediate action to conserve and manage the fishery
    resources found off the coast of the United States, and the anadromous
    species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States,
    by exercising (A) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring,
    exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish within the exclusive
    economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dates
    March 10, 1983, and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond
    the exclusive economic zone over such anadromous species and
    Continental Shelf fishery resources [, and fishery resources in special
    areas]. . .

        Indeed, it was the MSA in part that led to the first seizure of a
    foreign vessel harvesting fish in U.S. territorial waters. The Soviet
    trawler Taras Shevchenko arrived in Boston, MA, on April 11, 1977. The
    MSA thus became a tool of international diplomacy in the Cold War era.
    Implicit in this inclusion is that fish and fisheries become items to
    be bartered to obtain larger, national, and international political
    goals (witness the continuing evolution of selective import quotas and
    tariffs, not always responsive to home industry or entity needs).

        In addition to codifying international boundaries, the MSA
    proceeded to establish a structure for stewardship, thus:

        ``establish Regional Fishery Management Councils to exercise sound
    judgment in the stewardship of fishery resources through the
    preparation, monitoring, and revision of such plans under circumstances
    (A) which will enable the States, the fishing industry, consumer and
    environmental organizations, and other interested persons to
    participate in, and advise on, the establishment and administration of
    such plans, and (B) which take into account the social and economic
    needs of the States. . .''

        Each Council would have three members from each of the represented
    states, to include both standing memberships plus nominated and then
    appointed citizen members who serve 3 y terms. Although there is
    commendable inclusion here for citizen members, the diversity of
    contributing challenges subsumed in just fishery management alone is
    daunting, and underscores a continuing and pressing need for
    communication and listening skills in both council members and affected
    constituents--not just fishermen, but everyone with social and economic
    interest in a sustainable coastal zone economy and food security.
        I served as an appointed member for the Commonwealth of Virginia on
    the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) from 2016 through
    2019. Despite a career as a fisheries biologist, the diversity of
    challenges that I encountered in this period were considerable, and on
    more than one occasion, I questioned how much of the information
    provided by witnesses was useful to the Council. Scientists are trained
    to test hypotheses, and then deliver facts, rather than opinions, in a
    specific format with statistically defensible boundaries. They have
    their own vocabulary replete with exquisite terms, often marginally or
    completely unintelligible to the layperson. Consider the following as
    examples. What is essential fish habitat, if not water? What is the
    difference between overfished and overfishing? What is SSB (spawning
    stock biomass, but scientists love acronyms)? Should the stock recruit
    curve be Beverton-Holt or Ricker? Who cares about steepness and why?
    Should we use parametric or non-parametric approaches, or maybe
    Bayesian? Is an MPA a Marine Protected Area or a Master of Public
    Administration (if you Google it there are 144 definitions). What is
    the difference between weather and climate? Sitting in Council public
    hearings, I was more than once reminded of Tolkien:

        ``In one thing you have not changed, dear friend, said Aragorn: you
    still speak in riddles. What? In riddles? said Gandalf. No! For I was
    talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest
    person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young
    are wearying.''

              J. R. R. Tolkien, The Two Towers, Part II: Lord of the Rings.

        The collective lack of progressive response of governmental bodies
    stands as testament to the fact that the scientists, us, are still, at
    least part of the time, speaking in riddles and need to improve the
    communication skills.
        Despite these not being inconsiderable challenges, the regional
    Councils endeavor to manage fish stocks in a sustainable manner. How
    well are they doing in just this task (I will address the large
    challenges of multiple competing users later in this text)? Each
    geographic region faces unique challenges. I will focus a few comments
    on the status of stocks managed by the MAFMC and the New England
    Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC). It is relevant to start with an
    overview of the oceanography of the Council jurisdictions. The mid-
    Atlantic and New England shelf is part of a complex ocean ecosystem
    integrating physical signals from a yet wider region, given that its
    source water is the cold Labrador Current (LC). The Labrador Sea has
    been warming since the early 1800s (Moore et al. 2017). The Gulf of
    Maine (GOM) is supplied by westward flowing water from the LC across
    the Scotia Shelf (SS). Water exits the GOM through the Great South
    Channel to the Georges Bank (GB). In turn, the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB)
    is supplied by continuing southwesterly flow of this water mass. The
    warming signal from LC source water was recorded in ocean quahog shells
    for the MAB and GB, and accelerating growth rates continue to this day
    (Pace et al. 2018). The mid-Atlantic and New England subunits are far
    from uniform in physics and geology, driving differing responses in
    biologically exploitable resources. The central GOM is relatively deep
    and has counterclockwise circulation. The shallow western coastal rim
    is modest in area. The GB has clockwise circulation, is relatively
    shallow, and well mixed vertically. The MAB is notable for a very large
    annual temperature range combined with strong seasonal stratification,
    and the presence of a unique cold pool (Houghton et al. 1982) that
    permits southern extensions of the range of boreal (northern) species
    and structures the cross-shelf distribution of the benthos (Brown et
    al. 2012).
        Returning to the fisheries managed by the MAFMC, the council is
    responsible for the Atlantic mackerel, chub mackerel bluefish, spiny
    dogfish, summer flounder, golden and blueline tilefish, surf clam,
    butterfish, ocean quahog, Illex and longfin squids, scup, black sea
    bass, and monkfish. Of these, only the Atlantic mackerel and bluefish
    are technically overfished (i.e., the stock is depleted below the
    overfishing threshold: a stock-specific biological reference point
    where biomass is less than half that estimated to sustain maximum
    sustainable yield, Bmsy, where less than \1/2\ Bmsy is overfished), and
    only the Atlantic mackerel is being overfished (i.e., the fishing
    mortality rate, F, exceeds the fishing mortality rate commensurate with
    maximum sustainable yield, Fmsy, so overfishing is a rate where F/Fmsy
    is >1.0). The MAFMC manages conservatively, and it has a conservative
    risk policy where, simply stated, a ``buffer'' is considered between
    estimated stock available for harvest and actual quota allowed. The
    MAFMC manages through single-species assessments, implemented by the
    Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and reviewed by a Science and
    Statistical Committee that provides recommendations on overfishing
    limits. This highly structured process typically involves periodic
    major assessments every 3 y or so (sometimes more depending on species)
    with annual updates from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and
    Science and Statistical Committee to guide revision, if required, on
    overfishing limits and quotas. Although this process has strong
    attributes--the number of overfished stocks is commendably low--it
    focuses on short-term projections in an environment, literally and
    metaphorically, where environmental baselines are no longer stable but
    driven by warming climate, and the reality that multispecies
    interactions will always compromise single-species approaches. The
    NEFMC is, by contrast, challenged by overfished stocks of the Atlantic
    cod, winter flounder, yellowtail flounder, Atlantic halibut, Atlantic
    wolffish, witch flounder, windowpane flounder, and ocean pout among the
    Northeast Multispecies groundfish. Rebuilding plans are in place. The
    point to make, again, is that the biology of the MAB is different from
    that of GB and GOM, challenges are species specific, the NEFMC has to
    address trans-boundary stock management with Canada to the north, and
    it is also in flux as the GB and GOM warm with climate change. Stock
    assessment models designed to project stock status in changing
    environments are in their infancy and the subject of much research, but
    that does not negate the here-and-now challenges of ``simply managing
    fisheries'' because this is not simple.
        It is known that the MAB, GB, and GOM have been warming for a long
    time (Saba et al. 2016) and that species footprints are moving
    inexorably north and east (Kleisner et al. 2017). Species-specific
    sensitivity to climate change has received much attention (Hare et al.
    2016) but future species distributions are not driven by temperature
    alone. Habitat changes over this range, as does the distribution of
    both predators on and prey of target species (McHenry et al. 2019).
    Many species will suffer contraction of their footprint, given changes
    in bottom geology north of GB. Food web impacts on early life history
    stages may be particularly vulnerable, given that adult spawning may be
    cued to temperature, whereas food availability may be driven by
    seasonal day length resulting. The fact that such a mismatch can result
    in recruitment failures has been well documented since the early
    contributions of Johan Hjort (Hjort 1914, 1926). In a recent webinar,
    Jason Link (Link 2021) suggested cod might be largely absent from the
    GOM within a decade, with lobsters all moving to Canada within a few
    decades. Can you imagine Cape Cod with no cod? So, the Councils will be
    managing species that are not in their designated region; in the case
    of NEFMC, stocks may have moved across the Hague Line and be outside of
    U.S. management all together! The overlap of species distributions
    between Council regions is not new, but wholesale migration of their
    distributions arguably is new within the time frames of the MSA.
    Immediate challenges to Council structures are thus emerging in the
    cross-regional arena: Who acts as lead Council where species move? How
    can a common strategy on single-species versus ecosystem-based
    assessments be implemented? How can choke species, that is species for
    which the available quota is exhausted (long) before the quotas are
    exhausted of (some of) the other species that are caught together in a
    (mixed) fishery, be accommodated? What time frames should be considered
    for adaptation of management structure?
        But managing fisheries, with the MAFMC and NEFMC as examples, is no
    longer about just MSA directions to ``conserve and manage'' as a
    sustainable resource that serves the ``social and economic needs of the
    States.'' It is about managing fisheries in a changing landscape
    (seascape?) of competition for ocean shelf resources where the
    environment is changing faster than in living history and species
    footprints are moving inexorably north and east. The competition
    includes marine monuments and sanctuaries, environmental advocacy,
    communications corridors, mining, national defense, shipping and, the
    elephant in the room--green energy in the form of wind farms. Who will
    be the winners and losers in this competition? Over what time frames
    will winners emerge? How will the fishing industry be represented in
    this debate? A few examples will be examined.
        The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument referred to
    by Justice Roberts comprises 4,913 square miles, approximately 130
    miles east-southeast of Cape Cod. It was created by President Obama in
    2016 by a sweep of the pen using the Antiquities Act of 1906. The
    Monument is managed cooperatively by NOAA and USFWS employing a
    bewildering mix of legislation including MSA, the Endangered Species
    Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Wildlife Refuge
    System Administration Act as amended, the Refuge Recreation Act, Public
    Law 98-532, and Executive Order 6,166. And then there is the National
    Marine Sanctuaries Act that, under Commerce, can be used to designate
    and protect marine areas of national significance, so assigned based on
    their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific,
    cultural, archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities. There are
    probably a few more relevant pieces of legislation that I have, in my
    ignorance, left out. This is a plethora of confusing, at least to the
    inquisitive laymen, federal legislation that both creates forms of
    exclusion zones to fisheries and appears to lack uniform definitions
    [e.g., the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standards of
    2012 (NOAA 2012) do not appear where Essential Fish Habitat designation
    is used in delineating Habitat Management Area, for that task NEFMC
    employs the Swept Area Seabed Impact (NEFMC Habitat Plan Development
    team 2011) model], and is not clear on how or even if such designations
    are required to be revisited, even when species move, or clearly state
    who has precedent over who in the agency and legislative structure. A
    recent and unquestionably substantial addition to this arsenal is the
    Biden administration goal of ``30% by 2030'' of the nation's land,
    inland waters, and oceans (by that read EEZ) protected as conservation
    areas (Executive Office of the President 2021). Public polling
    indicates that 80% of voters nationwide view this as a reasonable goal
    that will be good for the economy (NRDC 2021). What is ``protected'' in
    this context? Is a region protected only at the exclusory level
    afforded by Monument status, or do the words of MSA directing to ``. .
    . conserve and manage the fishery resources'' and ``exercise sound
    judgment in the stewardship . . .'' rise to the equivalency of
    protection? If so, then is not the entire EEZ already protected under
    MSA? Does 30% need to be set aside in Marine Protected Areas (MPA)?
    Although MPAs have their support in constituencies arguing for
    preservation of biodiversity (Lester et al. 2009, Edgar et al 2014) in
    addition to associated social and economic benefits (Davis et al.
    2019), the debates over MPAs as universal positive tools in fishery
    management are far from resolved (Hilborn et al. 2004). Whereas the
    sustainability of managed fisheries is regularly stated, bottom
    trawling has recently been cast as a demonic activity releasing
    annually approximately 1 billion metric tons of carbon from the
    seafloor, equivalent to that released by air travel globally, to
    contribute to acidification of the ocean (Sala et al. 2021).
        Copper communication cables were relegated to the scrapheap of
    history when satellite communications enabled connectivity world-wide,
    but the advent of high-speed fiber optics facilitating breathtaking
    data transmission rates has reinvigorated the use of cables in
    communication, including undersea communication corridors. An
    underwater network of electricity cables has been functioning as part
    of the national grid for many years, mostly in shallower waters, well
    before wind turbines were considered as a major element of the national
    energy strategy. Both of these exist as significant economic drivers
    and are respectfully avoided by fishermen operating mobile gear.
        The mid-Atlantic hosts the largest naval base in the world
    (Norfolk, VA) in addition to other military installations serving all
    arms of the Department of Defense (DOD). The U.S. Navy operates DOD
    danger zones and restricted areas where the Atlantic Fleet conducts
    training exercises and tests. These are modest in area, but deserving
    of respectful use. Most other operational regions of limited access
    concerns, such as shock boxes and submarine transit lanes, are in
    deeper waters than typically occupied by fishing fleets.
        Offshore sand mining for beach replenishment to maintain coastal
    infrastructure and serve tourism is expected to increase along the mid-
    Atlantic coastline with sea level rise and climate change-driven
    increases in coastal storm activity. Although these represent modest
    offshore target zones for dredging source material, they are none the
    less in depth ranges commensurate with fishing, and represent a vital
    resource in significant local coastal economies.
        The recent stranding (March 23-29, 2021) of the container vessel
    Ever Given in the Suez Canal has highlighted the fragility of the
    global supply chain for cargo of all kinds. International trade relies
    on immediate access of these behemoths to docking facilities with short
    turnaround times. The specifications of such vessels are impressive.
    The Ever Given was built in 2018; is 400 m long, about 59 m wide, and
    15.7 m deep; can carry a total of 220,940 tons; and has a capacity of
    20,388 standard-size 20-foot containers (a TEU). She represents ship
    design driven by economies of scale in transport costs that have been
    in progress since 2008. As an example, cost savings per TEU carried
    between Asia and Northern Europe decreased from $1000/TEU for a mid
    1990's 8,000 TEU vessel to $700 for a 2013 18,000 TEU vessel. These
    economies are increasingly offset by rising port costs and port access
    challenges driven by, among other things, access channel depths (a
    fully loaded 20,000 TEU vessel draws 16.5 m necessitating dredging at
    most U.S. east coast ports) and limited clearance under existing
    bridges, in some instances necessitating raising bridges to facilitate
    access. The profitability of international megaship-based trade
    balances on the status of capacity (or overcapacity) for transport,
    fuel oil prices, and the global economy (Kapoor 2016). Yet this race
    for ever larger ships continues driving scenarios of safety and access
    that dictate exclusion zones where and when they operate.

        ``It's the economy, stupid''--James Carville, 1992, presidential
    campaign strategist for Bill Clinton.

        James Carville's words place the role of fishing in the EEZ in
    contrast to other uses described earlier. Consider that the MAFMC
    manages fisheries with a value of approximately 2 billion dollars
    annually. The port of New York and New Jersey handled 3.77 million
    inbound TEU in 2019. The Ports of Virginia handled 1.36 million inbound
    TEU in 2019. If a $15,000 value is assigned to the contents of each
    TEU, approximating to filling each with potatoes at the average 2020
    U.S. retail price of $0.75/pound, the throughput of the Ports of
    Virginia VA port alone exceeds the value of the fisheries under MAFMC
    management. The shipping economy dwarfs the fishing economy.
        The proverbial elephant in this room is green energy in the form of
    offshore wind farms. The U.S. east coast continental shelf has 1.7
    million acres of federal bottom under lease for the development of
    offshore wind energy (MARCO 2020, Munroe et al. 2021). The Biden
    administration moved quickly to permit the Vineyard Wind 1 offshore
    wind farm and is poised to continue its support for additional
    expansion (White House 2021). Offshore wind farms have a projected life
    of 50 y. Optimal physical spacing of individual structures restricts
    access by both commercial vessels towing mobile gear and federal survey
    vessels. Stock assessment surveys will be compromised, and both fishery
    footprints and concomitant quotas will be reduced. The modification of
    local flow fields and sediment transport, with impacts on water column
    dispersal processes and benthic community composition and productivity,
    remains subjects of research. Offshore wind farms are not inaccessible
    to Coast Guard aerial rescue operations, but they do present
    significant limitations for the use of helicopters. Exclusion zones or
    setback advisories for transmission cables beyond the wind farm
    footprint, between farm and shoreline, are of the order of 500 m or
    three times bottom depth (Best & Kilcher 2019); thus, a 500-m setback
    results in each kilometer of cable excluding 1 km2 of
    bottom. The fishing industry has formed a broad membership-based
    coalition committed to improving compatibility of offshore development
    with their businesses (RODA 2021). Whereas the development of offshore
    wind power remains a dynamic area of technology and public policy, the
    economic impact estimates for the offshore wind energy economy are
    enormous and equal in stature to that of shipping.

        ``According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the Atlantic Coast
    offshore wind project pipeline is estimated to support up to 86,000
    jobs, drive $57 billion in investments, and provide up to $25 billion
    in economic output by 2030.''

        ``New York expects a $6 billion in-state industry by 2028, and
    Massachusetts projects up to $80 million in direct economic impacts
    (Forbes Magazine 2018) . . .''.

        Perhaps the most breathtaking projection is the following:

        ``Offshore wind is projected to meet 90% of U.S. energy demand at
    full build out (Electrek Green Energy Brief 2021)''

        The impacts of such an achievement would radically change national
    energy policy, arguably negating the need for a U.S. fossil annual fuel
    subsidy approaching $649 billion, a number more than 10 times federal
    spending on education (Ellsmoor 2019), and this does not include
    ``savings'' from reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The subsidy
    estimate does not include annual spending of $81 billion on defending
    oil supplies from the around the world (DiChristopher 2018).
    Elimination of U.S. dependency on foreign oil would allow not just
    economic savings but also a major revision of everything from domestic
    and defense spending through foreign policy on human rights, where the
    latter would no longer include turning a proverbial blind eye to
    ongoing abuses in oil-supplying nations. As noted at the beginning of
    this text, the MSA enabled the inclusion of fisheries access as a tool
    of international diplomacy in the Cold War era. Wind energy-facilitated
    independence from foreign oil supply will become yet another addition
    to this toolbox, but one of far greater economic impact than fishery
    access. This prompts the question, where does preservation of the
    fishing industry sit in this pecking order? At the bottom?

        Fishery management in support of a sustainable industry that
    supports coastal communities and contributes to food security faces a
    growing list of challenges. With respect to just managing the fishery
    resource, two important questions arise:

      1.  How difficult is it to quantify response of a target species or
                species complexes to changing climate and thereby
                ``conserve and manage the fishery resources?''

      2.  How difficult is it to translate this information in a proactive
                manner to management plans that serve the ``social and
                economic needs of the States,'' and by that I include
                preservation of a sustainable fishing industry?

        How much of the ``zoned'' resource will be accessible to the
    fishing industry? The EEZ is being zoned with fixed boundaries with
    respect to wind farms that have projected 50 y operational time frames
    until decommissioning. Fisheries are based on moving species
    distributions and do not function well with fixed boundaries. Where
    will the fish be, and how will a management structure to ensure access
    be developed? The ``space'' for fisheries is shrinking. Fisheries will
    not be the largest economic player as development of the EEZ continues,
    but they are historically an important part of the economic and social
    structure of coastal communities. To reiterate one of my opening
    statements, there is need for continued engagement between user groups
    with respectful use of guiding science and legal structure to ensure
    reasoned access for all, and stability for economies that are reliant
    on ocean shelf resources, including the fishing industry.
    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

        This commentary grew out of an invitation to present a plenary
    lecture at the 113th Annual Meeting of the National Shellfisheries
    Association. The presentation focused on the need for fishery
    biologists to expand their field of knowledge and participate in
    decision-making processes that serve societal needs. This manuscript
    attempts to distill some of the diverse challenges facing the fishing
    industry as an example of the need for greater, balanced participation
    by the marine science community in these debates. I thank Sandy Shumway
    for the invitation to both present the plenary and offer this
    commentary in written form. This is Contribution Number 4018 from the
    Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
    LITERATURE CITED

    1. Best, B. & L. Kilcher. 2019. Submarine Cable Analysis for US Marine
    Renewable Energy Development. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
    Laboratory NREL/TP-5000-71125. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/
    fy20osti/71125.pdf.

    2. Brown, W., W. Boicourt, C. Flagg, et al. 2012. Mapping the Mid-
    Atlantic cold pool evolution and variability with ocean gliders and
    numerical models. Oceans 2012:1-6.

    3. Davis, K.J., G.M.S. Vianna, J.J. Meeuwig, et al. 2019. Estimating
    the economic benefits and costs of highly-protected marine protected
    areas. Ecosphere 10:e02879.

    4. DiChristopher, T. 2018. US spends $81 billion a year to protect
    global oil supplies, report estimates. Available at: https://
    www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/us-spends-81-billion-a-year-to-protect-oil-
    supplies-reportestimates.html.

    5. Edgar, G. J., R.D. Stuart-Smith, T.J. Willis, et al. 2014. Global
    conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key
    features. Nature 506:216.

    6. Electrek Green Energy Brief (EGEB). 2021. Quick Charge Podcast.
    Available at: https://electrek.co/2021/03/18/quick-charge-podcastmarch-
    19-2021/.

    7. Ellsmoor, J. 2019. United States Spend Ten Times More on Fossil Fuel
    Subsidies Than Education. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/
    jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-moreon-fossil-
    fuel-subsidies-than-education/?sh= 7b763f1b4473.

    8. Executive Office of the President. 2021. Tackling the Climate Crisis
    at Home and Abroad. Presidential Executive Order EO14008. Executive
    Office of the President. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/
    agencies/executive-office-of-the-president.

    9. Forbes Magazine. 2018. Is Offshore Wind About to Hit Cost-
    Competitiveness In New York And New England? Available at: https://
    www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/05/02/is-offshorewind-about-
    to-hit-cost-competitiveness-in-new-york-and-new-england/
    ?sh=6904dfa16720.

    10. Hare, J.A., W.E. Morrison, M.W. Nelson, et al. 2016. A
    vulnerability assessment of fish and invertebrates to climate change on
    the northeast U.S. continental shelf. PLoS One 11: e0146756.

    11. Hilborn, R., K. Stokes, T. Smith, et al. 2004. When can marine
    reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean Coast. Manage. 47:197-205.

    12. Hjort, J. 1914. Fluctuations in the great fisheries of northern
    Europe, viewed in the light of biological research. Rapp. P.-V. Reun.--
    Cons. Perm Int. Explor. Mer. 20:1-228.

    13. Hjort, J. 1926. Fluctuations in the year classes of important food
    fishes. J. Cons. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 1:5-38.

    14. Houghton, R.W., R. Schlitz, R.C. Beardsley, et al. 1982. The middle
    Atlantic Bight cold pool: evolution of the temperature structure during
    summer 1979. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 12:1019-1029.

    15. Kapoor, D. 2016. Diminishing economies of scale from megaships.
    Marine Money Japan Ship Finance Forum, Tokyo, May 12, 2016. Available
    at: https://www.marinemoney.com/system/files/media/mm/pdf/2016/
    1150%20Rahul%20 Kapoor.pdf.

    16. Kleisner, K.M., M. Fogarty, S. Mcgee, et al. 2017. Marine species
    distribution shifts on the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf under
    continued ocean warming. Prog. Oceanogr. 153:24-36.

    17. Lester, S.E., B. Halpern, K. Grorud-Colvert, et al. 2009.
    Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis.
    Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384:33-46.

    18. Link, J. 2021. Ten Ocean Prophecies. NOAA Environmental Leadership
    Seminar series, 2021. Available at: https://libguides.library.noaa.gov/
    noaaenvironmentalleadershipseries.

    19. MARCO. 2020. Offshore Wind in the Mid-Atlantic. Available at:
    https://www.midatlanticocean.org/offshore-wind-in-the-mid-atlantic-2/.

    20. McHenry, J., H. Welch, S.E. Lester & V. Saba. 2019. Projecting
    marine species range shifts from only temperature can mask climate
    vulnerability. Glob Change Biol. 25:4208-4221.

    21. Moore, G.W.K., J. Halfar, H. Majeed, et al. 2017. Amplification of
    the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation associated with the onset of the
    industrial-era warming. Sci. Rep. 7:40861.

    22. Mountain, D.G. 2003 Variability in the properties of shelf water in
    the middle Atlantic Bight, 1977-1999. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans
    108.3014:14-1-14-11.

    23. Munroe, D., E.N. Powell, E.E. Hofmann, et al. 2021. Interactions
    and impacts of wind development on east coast shellfish fisheries. In:
    National Shellfisheries Association, 113th Annual Meeting.

    24. NEFMC Habitat Plan Development team. 2011. Essential Fish Habitat
    (EFH) Omnibus Amendment. The Swept Area Seabed Impact Model: A Tool for
    Synthesizing the Effects of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat.
    Newburyport, MA: New England Fishery Management Council. Available at:
    http://archive.nefmc.org/habitat/sasi_info/110121_SASI_Document.pdf.

    25. NOAA. 2012. Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard.
    Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data
    Committee. FGDC_STD-018-2012. Available at: https://coast.noaa.gov/
    data/digitalcoast/pdf/cmecs.pdf.

    26. NRDC. 2021. Biden's Historic Action on 30 x 30. Available at:
    https://www.nrdc.org/experts/alison-chase/bidens-historic-action-30x30.

    27. Pace, S.M., E.N. Powell & R. Mann. 2018. Two-hundred year record of
    increasing growth rates for ocean quahogs (Arctica islandica) from the
    northwestern Atlantic Ocean. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 503:8-22.

    28. RODA. 2021. Responsible Offshore Development Alliance. Available
    at: https://rodafisheries.org/.

    29. Saba, V.S., S.M. Griffies, W.G. Anderson, et al. 2016. Enhanced
    warming of the northwest Atlantic Ocean under climate change. J.
    Geophys. Res. Oceans 121:118-132.

    30. Sala, E., J. Mayorga & J. Lubchenco. 2021. Protecting the global
    ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 592:397-402.

    31. White House. 2021. FACT SHEET: Biden administration Jumpstarts
    Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs. Available at: https://
    www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/29/fact-
    sheet-biden-administration-jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-
    create-jobs/.

                                     ______

                                 SAVING SEAFOOD
                      Northeast Canyons & Seamounts Marine
                        National Monument Teleconference
                             Friday, March 12, 2021

        On March 12, 2021 representatives of several East Coast fisheries
    participated in a teleconference with Department of the Interior staff
    and NOAA Fisheries leadership to provide input about the Northeast
    Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. They raised several
    concerns about the fairness of potential new monument restrictions, its
    potential impact on their communities, and the lack of scientific basis
    for further fishing restrictions. Specifically, the industry members,
    who represented a wide variety of fisheries from up and down the
    Atlantic, testified that continuing to allow fishing in the Atlantic
    monument area is consistent with the Biden Administration's goals of
    following the best available science, as well as its commitment to
    economic and environmental justice.

        This discussion followed a DOI monument review listening session
    the previous day for the leadership of the New England Fishery
    Management Council, the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the
    Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. During that session, both
    Councils and the Commission, which in total represent every state from
    Florida to Maine, endorsed the use of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
    and Conservation Management Act (MSA) and the open and public process
    which it mandates for fisheries management, over the use of the
    Antiquities Act of 1906 which has no such requirements.

        A recording of this session is attached, and a summary of the
    participant's comments appears below. Participants included (time of
    their presentation during the recording in parenthesis):

         David Borden (3:20)--Executive Director, Atlantic Offshore
                Lobster Association (RI, NH, MA)

         Greg DiDomenico (9:18)--Lund's Fisheries (NJ, MA, CA)

         Jonathan Williams (12:54)--Atlantic Red Crab Fisheries
                (MA, ME)

         Glenn Delaney (21:53)--Blue Water Fishermen's Association
                (entire east coast)

         Laurie Nolan (26:59)--F/V Seacapture (NY)

         Grant Moore (30:52)--Broadbill Fishing, F/V Direction.
                President of Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association
                (RI, NH, MA)

         Katie Almeida (35:21)--Town Dock (RI)

         Meghan Lapp (37:27)--SeaFreeze Shoreside (RI)

         Martin Scanlon, (43:02)--Blue Water Fishermen's
                Association (entire east coast)

         Chris Roebuck (44:19)--Owner/Operation of Two Offshore
                Trawlers

         Dan Farnham (46:28)--Mid Atlantic Fishery Management
                Council Member, Commercial Fisherman

         James Budi (50:20)--American Sword and Tuna Harvesters

                     SUMMARY OF SEAFOOD INDUSTRY STATEMENTS

    David Borden (3:20)--Executive Director, Atlantic Offshore Lobster
            Association

         ``What the Interior Department recommends to President
                Biden on this issue really matters, not only to the
                environment, but to the fabric of a number of coastal
                communities and minority ethnic groups.''

         Supports restoration of management provisions that were in
                President Obama's original monument declaration, with the
                exception of its fisheries provisions

         Fisheries should revert to being managed by NOAA; under
                the Magnuson-Stevens Act, fisheries must be managed with
                the best available science

         Interior Department should acknowledge new developments in
                habitat and fisheries management that occurred between
                President Obama's Executive Order and President Biden's
                Executive Order

         Recent habitat protections in New England were established
                through the regional Council process, including stakeholder
                input. Unlike an Executive Order, the Council process
                requires impact analysis

         These concerns are not partisan. Both Democratic and
                Republican presidential candidates supported the creation
                of five marine monuments through the Antiquities Act

         Several large coastal cities, with large minority and
                immigrant populations, will be negatively affected by any
                closure of the area to fishing

                -  Best example is New Bedford, which supports a community
            of recent immigrants from Central America

         A large number of immigrants are employed by fishing
                vessels and processing plants in New Bedford

         ``I have no doubt that any closure of this area will have
                a disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities in the
                city.''

         Closure of Atlantic monument area will move gear into
                areas with higher number of right whales

         Interior Department can also recommend that the New
                England Fishery Management Council coral amendment, which
                will protect an additional 25,000 square miles of habitat,
                be adopted
    Greg DiDomenico (9:18)--Lund's Fisheries

         Biden Administration Executive Order requires agencies to
                ``make evidence-based decisions guided by the best
                available science and data.''

         From the Executive Order: ``Scientific and technological
                information, data, and evidence are central to the
                development and iterative improvement of sound policies,
                and to the delivery of equitable programs, across every
                area of government. Scientific findings should never be
                distorted or influenced by political considerations. When
                scientific or technological information is considered in
                policy decisions, it should be subjected to well-
                established scientific processes, including peer review
                where feasible and appropriate, with appropriate
                protections for privacy. Improper political interference in
                the work of Federal scientists or other scientists who
                support the work of the Federal Government and in the
                communication of scientific facts undermines the welfare of
                the Nation, contributes to systemic inequities and
                injustices, and violates the trust that the public places
                in government to best serve its collective interests.''

         Only way to follow the scientific integrity provisions of
                the Executive Order is to have these types of habitat
                protections come through the Council process, which
                includes the expertise of the Council staff and outside
                scientists, as well as input from all stakeholders

         Councils have preserved the most sensitive habitat via two
                Council amendments, while not harming the fishing industry
    Jonathan Williams (12:54)--Atlantic Red Crab Fisheries

         Deep sea red crab fishing takes place in quarter-mile wide
                ribbon passing through the length of the monument, in
                depths of 600-800 meters

         The Atlantic marine monument bisects deep sea red crab
                fishing grounds, effectively closing off an area equal to
                the size of the monument directly to the east of the
                monument's location

         The deep sea red crab fishery was given a 7 year exemption
                by the Obama Administration, likely because the impact on
                the environment has been negligible

         ``The fishery is deemed sustainable, nobody will ever
                dispute that.''

         Red crab is not an industrial fishery, it is consolidated
                and has reduced in size of the last 20 years

         ``We have never overfished.''

         ``10 years ago, the same supporters of this monument
                deemed this fishery on their websites an ocean-friendly
                fishery. Now we are listed on the same websites as
                industrial fishermen''

         ``Of the 5000 square miles of the monument, we are present
                in 5% of just 1% of the monument. That's five one
                hundredths of a percent of the area of the monument.''

         The fishery stays away from coral areas when it fishes

         No documented marine mammal interactions or entanglements
                in the fishery

         The area of the monument, after 40 years of fishing, is
                still considered pristine

         The fishery represents $25-30 million. It is based out of
                New Bedford, where the unemployment rate is 20% higher than
                the national average, and employs up to 150 people, many of
                them first-generation Americans

         This is not a science-based initiative. None of the
                experts on the red crab fishery and its interactions with
                the benthic environment have had a voice in this process.
                These experts include Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Richard Wahle,
                Dr. Daniel Kauffman, Dr. Indu Sharma, Dr. Bradley Stevens,
                Dr. Fred Surchek, Dr. Joseph Dealteris, Dr. Imam Syuhada,
                Dr. Shelley Tallack, and Dr. David Pierce
    Glenn Delaney (21:53)--Blue Water Fishermen's Association

         The pelagic longline fishery is a surface fishery that has
                zero interaction with or impact on the deep-sea benthic
                ecosystem

         A truly objective, science-based analysis by NOAA would
                confirm that the US Atlantic pelagic longline fishery has
                no adverse impact on the Atlantic marine monument

         The monument provides no intrinsic benefit to the
                conservation of the highly migratory species of fish
                targeted by the fishery, such as swordfish and tuna

                -  Conservation is achieved by NOAA through an intensive
            science-based management, monitoring, and enforcement regime
            that is the global model for sustainability

         As much as 50% of the annual income of some of our
                fishermen has been derived from fishing in the monument
                area

         Anything that reduces U.S. fishermen's ability to fully
                harvest their sustainable quotas presents the risk of two
                negative consequences for conservation:

                -  Unused quota will be reallocated to nations whose
            monitoring, control, and surveillance capacities are far
            inferior to those of the US.

                -  The U.S. will import even more tuna and swordfish from
            Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fisheries, and
            nations with substandard conservation practices

         Collective efforts to reduce IUU fishing will be
                undermined by keeping pelagic fisheries out of the monument

         A decision to close the monument to fisheries would
                actually be counterproductive to efforts to reduce the
                effect of climate change

         The static closure of this monument to our fishery is
                unresponsive to climate-driven dynamics, and would present
                a barrier to an effective response
    Laurie Nolan (26:59)--family operates the F/V Seacapture in the Golden
            Tilefish fishery out of Montauk, NY. Former MAFMC member,
            served 18 years.

         Losing access to these grounds is an economic loss and
                hardship to our businesses, as well as the shoreside
                infrastructure and the marketing businesses that we support

         When the Council takes actions, it is not a closed-door,
                stroke-of-the-pen action. It is a very thorough, public,
                and science-based process

         The Councils are protecting the ecosystem, habitats,
                corals, and fish stocks while allowing fisheries to feed
                the nation

         The Executive Order Antiquities Act process is not the way
                to manage our nation's resources, ecosystems, habitats, and
                industries

         The Council Coordination Committee, which includes the
                Chair, Vice Chair, and Executive Director of the 8 Regional
                Fishery Management Councils and represents 29 states,
                Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all agree that
                the Council process should manage and protect the marine
                monuments.
    Grant Moore (30:52)--Broadbill Fishing, Owner F/V Direction. President
            of Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association

         Only 5 vessels have fished in the Atlantic monument area;
                despite 40 years of fishing, the area is still considered
                pristine

         There is very little scientific evidence that these
                fisheries cause habitat damage

         There was never a compelling need, or immediate threat, to
                justify closing out the domestic fishing fleet via
                President Obama's Executive Order

         Council process is public and considers both economic and
                environmental analysis

         Pending NOAA closures were endorsed by fishing fleets
                because they were developed with public input and
                considerations of the complexities of the ecosystems. They
                are science-based strategies that were also pro-American
                business and support the employment needs of coastal
                communities

         Fairhaven and New Bedford support a large immigrant
                population, with 23% of residents below the poverty level.
                These communities rely on the fishing industry for a
                variety of jobs

         ``I'd like to see this Administration support the existing
                fishing management process, foremost by immediately
                finalizing the 25000 square mile coral closure, which
                addresses both the 30x30 and Buy American Executive Order
                goals.''
    Katie Almeda (35:21)--Town Dock, Point Judith, RI

         ``The fishing industry is very concerned about additional
                closures, as we are seeing the start of a wind energy
                build-up, along with a recent mention of expansion in the
                waters off of southern New England.''

         ``With squid, we fish small mesh nets, which means we are
                only allowed to fish in certain areas. A large portion of
                that area is slated for wind farms.''

         ``Due to our mesh size, we cannot just move to another
                area to fish for squid, even if squid are available
                there.''

         ``The threat of losing additional acreage is a major
                economic concern for us and the workers that depend on our
                ability to fish for squid.''
    Meghan Lapp (37:27)--GM and Fisheries Liaison for SeaFree Shoreside

         ``For decades, the monument has been an extremely
                important fishing area for our vessels.''

         ``Due to this [Council] process and strict federal
                standards, U.S. commercial fisheries are the most
                sustainable fisheries on the planet.''

         According to a study by George Mason University, fisheries
                are the 7th most regulated industry in the US., more than
                oil and gas, and pharmaceutical manufacturing

         ``When one area closes, we do not simply have the ability
                to relocate due to existing closures and regulations
                established by Regional Fishery Management Councils.''

         ``Arbitrary executive closures with no analysis of impacts
                to effective users have huge economic impacts on our
                vessels, their future viability, and therefore our land-
                based facilities.''

         ``The cumulative effect of new and existing closures,
                combined with a basic reality of fisheries that fish are
                migratory and not found evenly disputed in the ocean, means
                that you create a situation where you have fully removed
                all fishing opportunities for a species.''

         ``To do that arbitrarily and behind closed doors with no
                analysis of impacts to fishing communities put the
                survivability of those affected businesses and communities
                in danger.''

         Our vessels and land based businesses support many
                American families; Fishermen should be commended and
                rewarded, not punished as a result

         Councils have approved sweeping conservation measures
                through the coral amendment.

                -  These measures were developed over years of scientific
            analysis, deliberation, and public participation from a wide
            variety of stakeholders

         Magnuson-Stevens Act involves intensive scientific
                analysis, but the Antiquities Act has no such standard

         ``To move from a transparent and scientific process to a
                closed-door executive process with no scientific
                deliberation would be a move backwards, rather than
                forwards.''
    Martin Scanlon (43:02)--Blue Water Fishermen's Association

         Establishing the monument hinders our ability to avoid
                interactions with protected species

         ``The number one and number two ways for us to avoid
                unwanted interactions, including protected species is to
                one, communicate the protocol amongst the fleet, and the
                ability of the fleet to move to avoid those interactions.
                You put that monument in there or you put in any closed
                areas on a fishery like we have, you hinder our ability to
                do that.''

         Both of those recommended techniques come from the Pelagic
                Longline Take Reduction Team
    Chris Roebuck (44:19)--Owner/Operation of Two Offshore Trawlers

         ``Closing this area would be a huge loss for us.''

         Although the Council process can be frustrating and drawn-
                out, it is science-based and allows for stakeholder input

         Managing this area under the Antiquities Act is the wrong
                way to regulated the fisheries that are already managed
                sustainably by the Council process
    Dan Farnham (46:28)--MAFMC Council Member, Commercial Fisherman

         ``Economically, the area is extremely important to the
                industry as a whole.''

         The installation of new wind farms is reducing areas where
                fishermen can operate

         It has been proven that the fish stocks in the area are
                healthy.

         The area is pristine even though it has been commercially
                fished for decades

         ``We fish responsibly, as a nation our stocks are
                healthy.''

         ``The less fish we harvest in our waters just means that
                that we will import more fish from other countries that do
                not harvest fish as sustainably as we do as a whole.''
    James Budi (50:20)--American Sword and Tuna Harvesters

         ``The no-fishing ban in the monument is what we consider a
                monumental mistake.''

         ``Industrial fishermen, we are not. We are akin to small
                family farmers.''

         ``We feel that the review should be delayed until the
                Secretary of the Interior is in place per President Biden's
                request.''

         ``A commercial fishing ban serves no conservation
                benefit.''

         Per NOAA's website, ``pelagic longline gear used to catch
                swordfish has no impact on habitat.''

         Fishing impact on the monument below us is like a bird
                flying over the Grand Canyon

         ``There is no peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates
                the conservation benefit of the monument's fishing
                restrictions to the highly migratory stocks that are
                targeted.''

         The ban on commercial fishing within the marine monument
                waters causes fishermen to travel further offshore, with
                increased operational expenses and higher safety risk

         ``It's a matter not only of U.S. trade deficit and
                conservation, but of national security that America
                protects and promotes its domestic food sources.''

         A fishing ban would severely impact the livelihoods of the
                underserved class that make up the majority of swordfish
                boat crews. In addition, minorities and immigrants working
                in support businesses such as packing houses and shipyards
                would suffer from the loss of business.

         In his study ``The Environmental Cost of Food,'' Dr. Ray
                Hilborn shows the ecological impact of commercial fisheries
                not only far outperforms beef, pork and poultry farming,
                but even soy production. The carbon footprint of today's
                longliner as measured against recreational boats catch per
                unit fossil fuel is estimated to be on the order of four
                times more efficient.

                                     ______

                                 Seafreeze Ltd.

                         North Kingstown, Rhode Island

                                                 September 26, 2023

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Westerman:

        I am submitting this testimony as regards the Northeast Canyons
    Marine Monument to the Committee along with a series of comment
    submissions. Seafreeze vessels have sustainably fished in the Monument
    area for decades, pursuant to the high federal standards of the
    Magnuson Stevens Act, under which US fisheries are the 7th most
    regulated industry in the United States.\1\ In fact, when the Monument
    was initially designated, our vessels fished in the area right up until
    the day they were evicted. I even received a phone call from our
    vessel's satellite phone offshore, with the captain asking me how much
    longer they had until they were required to leave.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/
    mclaughlin-sherouse-list-10-most-regulated-industries-2014.

        Since 2015, we have submitted comment after comment to the federal
    government detailing the serious impacts that the Monument would have,
    and has had, on our commercial fishing vessels. Included in this
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    comment are:

      1.  Two emails submitted to NOAA's Monument ``comment portal'' in
                2015, which was an unofficial process with changing
                goalposts for comment submission deadlines, and the details
                of which nobody at NOAA could explain. The confidential
                vessel data, provided to NOAA in the comment portal, have
                been removed.

      2.  Testimony provided to this Committee's Subcommittee on Water,
                Power and Oceans on May 17, 2016 on this issue, along with
                the official Committee invitation notice to testify.

      3.  A 2016 joint letter from the Rhode Island Congressional
                delegation to CEQ raising the very real fisheries issues
                for RI vessels that would arise from Monument designation.

      4.  Two letters to the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of
                Commerce in 2017 on the topic of this Monument.

      5.  Testimony provided to the Biden Administration in 2021 on the
                impacts of the Monument to Seafreeze vessels and our
                fisheries.

        I personally have fished in the monument on board one of our
    fishing vessels and witnessed the impacts. During that trip, we steamed
    for hours across the Monument to look for fish on the other side. After
    not finding the species we were targeting, we were then forced to steam
    for hours back across the Monument. It didn't matter even if the
    captain could see fish inside the Monument itself; we were forced to
    waste time, fuel, expense, and effort rather than be allowed to
    sustainably harvest our target species in the area that our vessels
    have worked since they were built. Removing historic fishing grounds,
    opportunity and income through an Executive Order is punitive to hard-
    working U.S. commercial fishermen, who are held to the highest
    fisheries standards in the world.

        Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.
    Sincerely,

                Sincerely,

                                                   Meghan Lapp,
                                                      Fisheries Liaison

                                     ______

    From:  Meghan Lapp

    To:  atlanticconservation@noaa.gov

    Subject:  National Monuments Written Comment

    Date:  Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:05:21 PM

                                     *****

    On behalf of Seafreeze Ltd, I would like to make the following
    comments:

    Seafreeze Ltd, based in Davisville RI, is the East Coast's largest
    producer of illex squid, mackerel and butterfish. We are also one of
    the East Coast's largest producers of loligo squid. We own and operate
    two freezer trawlers that spend one quarter to one third of any given
    year fishing in the canyon areas proposed as National Monuments. In
    some years it is an even greater percentage. We have been steadily
    fishing these areas for squid, mackerel and butterfish for 30 years.
    Our company supports 95 employees both on our vessels and on land. The
    United States cannot afford to lose jobs in the tough economic times in
    which we live. These 95 jobs depend on fishing access to these areas
    which we have historically and currently fished.

    Attached is a chart showing fishing activity and fishing vessel transit
    in the areas proposed for closure. This data has been compiled from the
    electronic charts of various vessels in various fisheries in New
    England. It is by no means inclusive of all activity, but it serves to
    make it very clear that significant fishing activity occurs in the New
    England canyon regions. Unfortunately, due to the lack of advance
    notice of NOAA's intention to consider the National Monument proposals,
    and the deadline of September 15 for comments, we were unable to
    download fishing activity information from our own vessels; they have
    been out to sea. Closing the New England canyon fishing areas without
    any economic assessment as to their importance to fishing vessels and
    businesses would be inappropriate.

    As recently as this June, the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council
    completed its Deep Sea Coral Amendment, designed to protect the deep
    sea canyons of the Mid Atlantic. It was a deliberative process that
    included science, stakeholder input, extensive analysis, and
    collaboration. Seafreeze was actively involved in this process, and it
    is the process any such deep sea canyon protection should follow. An
    executive order would circumvent this important and legislatively
    designed process.

    We therefore request that executive designation as a National Monument
    not be considered. Rather, all such fishery management actions should
    be developed through the Fishery Management Council process as
    congressionally directed by the Magnuson Stevens Act.

    Sincerely,

    Meghan Lapp,
    Fisheries Liaison
    Seafreeze Ltd.

                                     ______

    From:  Meghan Lapp

    To:  atlanticconservation@noaa.gov

    Subject:  National Monument Designation Comments

    Date:  Friday, October 2, 2015 8:03 PM

                                     *****

    On behalf of Seafreeze Ltd, I would like to make the following
    additional comments:

    As stated in our previous comments, Seafreeze Ltd. is a fishing and
    seafood production company based in Davisville, RI. We also have a
    Shoreside facility in Point Judith, employ 95 Rhode Islanders, and help
    support many other local businesses and jobs. The recent proposal to
    designate certain New England offshore deep sea canyons and seamounts
    as a National Monument could mean the loss of our company and the jobs
    that we provide, as the areas proposed for closure are extremely
    valuable to our fishing operations.

    One of the most concerning aspects of this entire process is that there
    has been virtually no transparency. A short time ago, an unexpected
    email blast went out from NOAA announcing possible National Monument
    designations and a Town Hall meeting in Providence for the public to
    submit verbal comments, where every participant was limited to a two
    minute time slot. Although an email address has been created for
    submission of written comments, we have no idea how these comments will
    be reviewed, by whom, to whom they will be presented, how long the
    comment period will remain open, or any information as to what kind of
    process is being followed. As a company who has participated many times
    in public process, especially on fisheries issues, it is disturbing
    that we were left completely in the dark with an issue that has the
    potential to put us out of business. Unfortunately, NOAA staff has also
    been unable to answer our questions on this subject. This is deeply
    disturbing, considering NOAA is administering the comment portal.

    Furthermore, we were not even sure what was being proposed, because no
    boundary lines had been drawn or even hinted at. We were asked to
    comment on a theory during this comment period, not an actual proposal.
    NOAA has shown no proposed boundary coordinates, no regulatory
    provisions, no depth contours, no actual evidence to show the necessity
    of closure of any area. At NOAA's Town Hall meeting in Providence we
    were informed that no actual proposals or boundary lines had been
    drawn, and that NOAA was collecting comments on the concept of National
    Monument designations in these areas. However, new evidence shows that
    this has not been the case, as discussed below.

    As mentioned in our previous comment letter, Seafreeze participated
    extensively in the development of the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management
    Council's Deep Sea Corals Amendment, which designated protections
    similar to what is being sought after by executive order. However,
    unlike an executive order or the current public participation process
    for a possible National Monument designation, the process was
    collaborative and included scientific input, fisheries stakeholder
    input, environmental group input, legal input, university input,
    governmental input, and a true public deliberation that took place over
    the period of time needed to thoroughly investigate the issue. Through
    this process, which included a Deep Sea Coral Workshop to develop
    protection boundaries, both deep sea corals and historic fishing areas
    were preserved. A similar type of deliberative process was anticipated
    as the New England Deep Sea Coral Amendment went forward. However, now
    our fishing vessels and our business are being out in a very precarious
    position. If the executive designation removes deep sea canyons
    protection from the process necessary to include the proper science and
    stakeholder involvement, it could mean the loss of many jobs. To
    continue with a National Monument designation would be arbitrary and
    insupportable at this point in time, when the New England Fishery
    Management Council has been preparing to undertake the issue pursuant
    to a Memorandum of Understanding between the New England, Mid Atlantic,
    and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, which can be accessed
    here:

    http://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/
    51e6c21ae4b0e 93105b1f07d/1374077466016/June+2013+Final+DSC+MOU.pdf

    The Council process is the appropriate vehicle to afford protections to
    deep sea canyons while addressing stakeholder needs as well. A National
    Monument designation is not.

    Attached to this email are several images designed to demonstrate
    current fishery management and fishing activity. Important to note when
    viewing these images is the fact that they are merely a snapshot and
    are by no means comprehensive. Not all fish prefer the same
    temperature/depth, so what is represented on these charts may show
    activity from one fishery but not another (meaning some vessels may
    need to fish in more areas/deeper areas depending on what species is
    being targeted). Also important to note is the fact that current
    activity is already limited to certain areas and depths due to fishing
    restrictions already in place. Adjacent areas may show different
    activity.

    The first picture is a chart showing all of the closed areas on the
    north side of Georges Banks and in the Gulf of Maine; the second is
    showing closed areas on the south side of Georges Bank and to the
    south. These are taken off a standard electronic fishing chart. All of
    the colored boxes represented are closures to fishing. Some are
    permanent, some are seasonal, some are gear restricted areas (GRAs). It
    is very easy to see that any claims that there are ``no protections''
    from fishing activity in the New England region are false. In fact,
    more area is off limits or of limited access than is actually open or
    free from area management.

    The third picture is of Oceanographer, Gilbert and Lydonia canyons, and
    of the Tilefish GRAs in place in both Oceanographer and Lydonia
    canyons. Bottom trawling is already prohibited in these GRAs, so claims
    that the areas need protection from bottom trawling are spurious. Since
    the areas are already off limits to ours and other bottom trawl
    vessels, any current bottom trawl fishing activity demonstrated
    subsequent images is going to be limited to areas outside the GRA.

    The fourth image is activity by just one of our freezer vessels in the
    Oceanographer, Gilbert, and Lydonia canyon area; this is considerable
    activity by a single vessel. This area has been extremely productive
    for Seafreeze's primary target species of Loligo squid, Illex squid,
    butterfish, and mackerel. In fact, some of our most productive seasons
    in our 30 year history have occurred in this very area. We are already
    prohibited from fishing in the tilefish GRA and the areas detailed on
    the first two images; we do not need to lose any more fishable area.
    Furthermore, due to the fact that no actual proposals have been made
    public by NOAA, we do not know the scope of what is proposed for
    closure.

    The fifth picture is fishing activity by just one of our Shoreside
    customers around Oceanographer, Gilbert, and Lydonia canyons. Again,
    this is substantial activity. The fifth image is of the canyons, but on
    a different plotter with activity from several vessels. As demonstrated
    by these several charts, fishing activity varies vessel to vessel. Some
    of the areas fished are relatively the same, some are different, based
    on the species targeted. That is why the entire issue of canyon
    protection needs to be remanded back to the New England Fishery
    Management Council--these areas are very important to different people,
    but also in different places. It is an extensive issue that needs the
    proper time and deliberation to ensure protection for fishing
    communities and businesses as well as the environment.

    Additional concerns include maneuverability and transit. Vessels need
    room to maneuver. Although they are no longer fishing and the gear is
    no longer on the bottom, trawl vessels need extra area to haul back
    their nets, wires, etc., while the vessel is kept on a straight course.
    Consideration of weather conditions during fishing activity--i.e. the
    high winds, significant wave height, strong tides--is also necessary.
    Buffers need to be considered for maneuverability. Transit capabilities
    are of additional importance, as it can cost many hours and gallons of
    fuel to steam around an area rather than through it.

    While compiling this information and acting in good faith during the
    public comment process, we have been made aware that the individuals/
    groups involved in supporting the National Monument designation have
    not been. They not only had a planned time frame for this action (next
    week after the Chile Our Oceans Conference), but also planned boundary
    lines. The emails in the second link below detail key individuals
    involved, including Monica Medina, NOAA Principal Deputy Undersecretary
    for Oceans and Atmosphere. Apparently, there have been exact proposed
    lines, actual GPS coordinates, an ``economic data report'', etc, which
    NOAA personnel had and refused to make public--prior to NOAA's Town
    Hall meeting held in Providence. Since the initial announcement, we
    were told that nothing was known about any of this process or what
    exactly was being proposed, etc., even by NOAA personnel. Now we know
    this is not the case and that not only did top NOAA officials have
    access to this information, they collaborated in it. We could not
    effectively comment because we didn't know exactly even what we were
    commenting on, although we stand to be a heavily affected party to the
    decision. Our Rhode Island Senators outlined this very issue in their
    request to the President for transparency. However, this entire process
    has been a deliberate attempt at non-transparency. The last page of the
    second link below shows the proposed boundary lines on a bathymetry
    chart. The Oceanographer, Gilbert and Lydonia canyon boundaries cut off
    ALL of our tows in the area. Does the referenced ``economic data
    report'' include the huge economic losses our business would sustain as
    a result of this closure? This is highly unlikely.

    http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060025612?utm_source=EMILY+YEHLE%3A+
    Greens+hopes+for+quick+win+on+New+England+monument+fade&utm_campaign=
    Emails+obtained+by+SS&utm_medium=email

    We cannot support any executive action that would designate the New
    England canyon areas as a National Monument. Our business has too much
    at stake. We have been open and transparent about our activity in the
    area by submitting our charts, and we expect our government agencies to
    do the same. We cannot support any designation or action that is non-
    transparent and conducted behind closed doors, absent stakeholder
    collaboration and involvement. We demand an honest and transparent
    process.

    Meghan Lapp,
    Fisheries Liaison
    Seafreeze Ltd.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Meghan Lapp, Fisheries Liaison, Seafreeze Ltd.
       on ``The Implications of President Obama's National Ocean Policy''
             House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Hearing
                                  May 17, 2016

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is
    Meghan Lapp, and I represent Seafreeze, Ltd., the largest producer and
    trader of sea frozen fish on the U.S. East Coast. We operate two
    freezer vessels out of Davisville, RI, that fish from the Canadian line
    to North Carolina.
        I am here today to tell you that the implications of President
    Obama's National Ocean Policy (NOP) are already being felt and
    implemented through the Fishery Management Councils and NOAA/NMFS
    science and policy, even prior to any finalized regional Ocean Action
    Plan by a Regional Planning Body. Rather than detail every specific, I
    would like to relate my personal experiences thus far, and the
    increased concerns I have as the process moves forward.
        NOAA science is the driving force of fisheries management, and has
    embraced the ``fundamental shift'' to ecosystem-based management.
    Therefore, fisheries regulatory bodies such as the Fishery Management
    Councils have also been forced to embrace this fundamental shift. As a
    result, the New England Fishery Management Council now has an
    ``Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management Committee'', which is conducting
    a eFEP (experimental Fishery Ecosystem Plan), much as is outlined in
    the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, i.e. to ``implement
    pilot projects that use an ecosystem-based approach'' (p.20; ``Pilot
    projects will . . . enable decision makers and managers to understand
    how ecosystem-based management can be most effectively implemented at
    regional scales . . .''). The Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council
    now has an Ecosystems and Ocean Planning Committee, of which I am an
    Advisory Panel member. To date as an AP member, I have been asked to
    give input on policy towards industrial ocean use, as well as habitat
    impacts/policy, and potential tradeoffs, much as is discussed in the
    Task Force Recommendations on Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.
    While incorporating ecosystem considerations in fishery management is
    not a new concept, it has only been recently that directed management
    efforts have been concentrated on implementation. While the National
    Ocean Council and National Ocean Policy are touted as non-regulatory,
    they are clearly controlling the agenda of regulatory agencies and
    bodies. This will result in regulations to the end user.
        One serious concern from a fishery stakeholder perspective is the
    policy's commitment to the ``reduction of cumulative impacts from human
    uses on marine ecosystems''(Task Force, p. 33) and the ``conservation
    of important ecological areas, such as areas of high productivity''
    (Task Force, p. 44). Currently, as part of data collection for the
    National Ocean Policy, confidential fisheries data has been complied
    into public charts that detail where concentrated commercial fishing
    activity takes place, aka areas of high productivity. For the sake of
    NOP ``conservation'', does that mean we will lose access to our fishing
    grounds? (Will state or federal Fishery Management Plans be required to
    close these areas, due to the fact that NOAA, which must comply with
    these Task Force Recommendations, has the final say on FMPs? And that
    the States and Fishery Management Councils on the Regional Planning
    Bodies will be bound by RPB Plans? The Northeast Regional Planning Body
    has a chart on its webpage that states : ``Regulatory: Use of Ocean
    Plan Data in NEPA and regulatory processes'', and documents containing
    the Task force mandate as well as potential corresponding regulations
    for fishery management.) According to the Task Force, the specific
    questions and concerns of those who rely on marine resources will be
    addressed ``as implementation progresses'' (Task Force, p. 9). I find
    this outrageous.
        My experience at a Northeast Regional Planning Body (RPB) meeting
    does not serve to ease my concerns. It was very apparent from the
    discussion that the push was to get the RPB Plan done at all costs by
    2016. After the public comment period during which I raised real
    fisheries issues with the process, data, and impacts to fisheries from
    both an equity and ecological perspective, one RPB member stated that
    the short timeline had reduced the RPB's ability to be transparent and
    do stakeholder engagement, and that they were just going to create a
    plan because of a timeline without the credibility needed. To this, one
    of the Co-Chairs responded, ``We're going to produce a plan and it's
    going to get adopted'' (by the NOC), to which the NOC Director
    responded by nodding. As a stakeholder, this tells me that my interests
    don't matter and that the only goal is implementation by 2016. Another
    comment that ``at the end of 16 months you want to make this so hard to
    shut off'' tells me that the Plan is designed to be railroaded through
    regardless of future objections.
        The Administration's top down approach cannot be made clearer than
    through the recent Marine Monument discussion. Last year, an unexpected
    email announcement went out over NOAA's Greater Atlantic Regional
    Fisheries Office listserve. It gave stakeholders a two week notice that
    there was consideration by the Administration to designate several deep
    sea canyons as Marine National Monuments, one reason of which was
    protection of deep sea corals. This came soon after the Mid Atlantic
    Fishery Management Council had completed a Deep Sea Corals Amendment,
    which included extensive stakeholder input, including an interactive
    workshop to draw boundary lines. (Seafreeze was a participant in this
    workshop.) It was also right about the time when the New England
    Fishery Management Council intended to resume work on its own Deep Sea
    Corals Amendment in that very area, during which stakeholders expect a
    similar interactive process. Many of the environmental NGOs who had
    taken credit for collaboration in the Mid Atlantic workshop were among
    those championing a National Monument designation and a bypassing of
    the New England Council process. The canyon areas under consideration
    as Marine Monuments are extremely productive and of great economic
    importance to Seafreeze. Holding just one public meeting to allow for
    stakeholder input, NOAA released a comment portal through which to
    submit further comment. (The original meeting notice stated that
    comments through the portal had to be submitted by the date of the
    meeting. The day after the meeting, a notice was released that asked
    for further comments to be sent ``as soon as possible''.) In a frenzied
    attempt to protect Seafreeze's interests, I submitted not only written
    comments but proprietary/confidential charts documenting our vessels'
    fishing activity in the area as an argument that our fishing grounds
    needed to be kept open. When I asked, no one at NOAA could tell me how
    long the comment period would remain open. Neither could anyone at the
    agency inform me how or why this discussion was initiated (whether
    executive request, response to petitions, etc), if there was any
    specific process being followed, who would be reviewing our comments,
    who would be presenting them, and to whom. It was like a black hole; we
    had no idea what was going on. This is disturbing especially
    considering the type of confidential information I felt necessary to
    submit. From a current stakeholder's perspective, this is the
    antithesis of how decisions should be made. We still live in the
    uncertainty of what may happen with this.
        Since this Policy, we have had less input into our future, not
    more. Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions.

                                     ______

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                                 Washington, DC

                                                  September 7, 2016

    Christy Goldfuss, Managing Director
    Council on Environmental Quality
    722 Jackson Place NW
    Washington, DC 20503

        Dear Director Goldfuss:

        We understand that President Obama will soon designate the first
    national marine monument in the Atlantic Ocean. Since the
    Administration began to discuss an Atlantic monument a year ago, we
    have urged the Administration to have as open a process as possible. We
    have also asked the Administration to carefully consider the effects on
    Rhode Island's fishing industry, which has fished in the New England
    Coral Canyons for decades while leaving the area in a condition that
    environmental organizations routinely describe as ``pristine''.
        As the President finalizes the boundaries for a monument, we write
    to emphasize the opportunity before him to designate an area that
    protects both New England's unique coral habitats and its proud fishing
    heritage.
        While we would have preferred a more open process, we appreciate
    CEQ's efforts to speak with our fishermen and state experts through
    your meetings in Providence earlier this year and additional
    conversations held in Washington, DC. Over the past few months, our
    offices have also conducted extensive outreach to fishermen in Rhode
    Island who will be most significantly affected by a monument
    designation. The proposal put forward by the Connecticut congressional
    delegation has generated considerable concern about how a monument
    could affect the economic viability of fishing in southern New England.
    Though the seamount portion of the proposal poses limited effect on
    Rhode Island fishermen, the canyons are very challenging. If this
    proposal were adopted outright, lobster, squid, butterfish, Jonah crab,
    whiting, and other segments of Rhode Island's fishing industry would be
    forced out of a productive and well-managed area without recourse or
    compensation.
        The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM)
    estimates that over 20 active fixed gear vessels with homeports in
    Rhode Island fish in the area proposed by the Connecticut delegation.
    These vessels lay 1,000 to 2,000 traps each. Each vessel can bring in
    up to $1.5 million annually in lobster and crab. In addition, around 22
    mobile gear boats docked in Rhode Island fish an average of a quarter
    of their days at sea in the area proposed by the Connecticut
    delegation. Each of these boats, which include fishermen harvesting
    squid, butterfish, and mackerel, can produce approximately $1 million
    in landings annually with some boats producing up to $5 million in a
    year. Our fishermen estimated the total economic output from direct
    landings and associated economic activities from fishing in the
    proposed monument area to be in the tens of millions of dollars. We
    understand these data from RIDEM and fishermen have also been shared
    with CEQ.
        Relocation is not a realistic solution to the restrictions that
    come with a monument designation. Displacement of fishing effort to
    areas outside the monument is likely to trigger notable increases in
    conflict with protected species, bycatch, and among fishermen
    themselves.
        As you know, New England's fisheries have been among the most
    challenged in the nation. Fishermen have contended with depleted and
    shifting stocks, gear restrictions, difficult quota reductions, and
    increased monitoring expenses. Though much of the fishing industry's
    frustrations with these issues has been focused on federal and state
    regulators, we have still seen progress in building trust between the
    two sides. Leadership and staff at RIDEM and NOAA's Greater Atlantic
    Regional Office and our fishermen have worked diligently to rebuild
    damaged relationships. With an emphasis on process and sound science--
    tenets of the President's regional ocean planning efforts--some of
    these wounds have started to heal.
        Despite their deep misgivings about the monument designation
    process, our fishermen came to the table with thoughtful, reasonable
    ideas to utilize the Antiquities Act to maximize conservation goals
    while protecting an important segment of our state's economy. We have
    also witnessed unprecedented cooperation among fishermen and support
    for the work of the New England Fishery Management Council under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
    However, the threat of a monument designation that inadequately
    reflects the input and concerns of fishermen puts all of this hard work
    and trust building at risk. It would be unfortunate to let the momentum
    building among fishermen in support of conservation go to waste by
    designating a monument that does not balance environmental preservation
    with fishing interests.
        Most recently, fishermen have presented CEQ with isobaths for the
    coral canyons that they believe would protect deep sea corals while
    allowing fishermen to sustain their businesses. The proposal includes
    an understanding that the Massachusetts red crab fishery, which fishes
    deeper than the other fixed gear or mobile gear fleets, would be
    considered separately in any designation. It reflects the fishermen's
    cooperative attempt to find a balance between the MSA and Antiquities
    Act. Not only would this compromise guarantee limited consequences for
    New England fisheries, but it would also protect a majority of the
    marine mammal and biodiversity hotspots as identified by the
    researchers at the New England and Mystic Aquariums. We urge CEQ to
    give the revised compromise proposal offered by the fishermen sincere
    and full consideration.
        We also want to emphasize that a monument designation that gives
    deference to our fishermen's recommendations offers President Obama the
    opportunity to set a positive tone for successful fisheries management
    and environmental stewardship under the MSA. Indeed, it will bolster
    industry support for additional protections, such as the New England
    Fishery Management Council's Deep Sea Coral Amendment process, which
    the members of the fishing industry have repeatedly supported
    throughout the discussions of a monument. It could also build support
    for sustainable fishing in the region through increased investment in
    cooperative research, new fishermen training, electronic monitoring,
    and management that is capable of quickly reacting to the changes we
    are seeing in our oceans, such as northward shifts in black sea bass
    and other valuable species.
        Finally, responding to the concerns of our fishermen will honor the
    spirit of the regional planning process under President Obama's
    National Ocean Policy, which has been so successfully implemented in
    New England. It will leave this process intact to pay conservation
    dividends long into the future, producing a better conservation result
    rather than damaging it with what may look to participants like a
    breach of faith over a monuments designation.
        Thank you for the serious consideration you have given to our
    fishermen and state experts as you develop a proposal for the
    President. We look forward to seeing a well-balanced monument that
    protects corals, marine mammals, and our fishermen for generations to
    come.

                Sincerely,

            Jack Reed,                    Sheldon Whitehouse,
            United States Senator         United States Senator

            James R. Langevin,            David Cicilline,
            Member of Congress            Member of Congress

                                     ______

                                 Seafreeze Ltd.

                         North Kingstown, Rhode Island

                                                       July 6, 2017

    Hon. Ryan Zinke, Secretary
    U.S. Department of the Interior
    1849 C Street NW
    Washington, DC 20240

        Dear Secretary Zinke:

        Thank you for undertaking a review of the Northeast Canyons and
    Seamounts Marine Monument enacted by President Obama in 2016. Seafreeze
    Ltd. is a family-owned fishing company based in Rhode Island. We own
    and operate two fishing vessels that freeze at sea, as well as a shore-
    based dealer facility, and are the largest producer and trader of sea
    frozen fish on the U.S. East Coast. Our vessels have fished in the area
    now designated as the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument since
    the 1980s, and derive a considerable amount of our annual revenue from
    that area. The Monument area is our place of business, and since losing
    access to our historic fishing grounds there in 2016, our vessels and
    business have financially suffered as a result.
        We participate extensively in the Regional Fishery Management
    Council process, as established through the Magnuson Stevens Act. This
    process requires certain scientific thresholds for fishery management
    decisions, as well as economic analysis, policy standards, and other
    legal requirements necessary for good decision making. Executive use of
    the Antiquities Act to unilaterally close productive, historic fishing
    grounds and overrule a legally required public fishery management
    process is unacceptable and threatens the future financial stability of
    our business. We cannot have a business plan for the future if our
    historic fishing grounds, and therefore sources of income, can be taken
    away without warning at any given moment.
        On May 17, 2016, we testified to this before the House Committee on
    Natural Resources as the potential for a Marine Monument on our fishing
    grounds was ongoing. See https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
    eventsingle.aspx?EventID= 400425 and https://
    naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/testimony_lapp.pdf. We also
    published an editorial in the September 2016 Massachusetts Lobstermen's
    Association Newsletter, highlighting the scientific and factual
    inaccuracies with pro-Monument claims. See page 22 at http://
    lobstermen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/MLA_WEB_September2016.pdf;
    hard copy attached. Despite any factual evidence or any due process,
    the Monument designation was made and our vessels were forced to leave
    the area.
        Commercial fishing in the United States is a highly regulated
    industry that supports thousands of jobs and communities coast-wide. It
    is also an important food source for our nation. It is a disservice to
    those who economically rely on this resource to strip them of their
    source of income, as well as to remove a food source from the people of
    the United States. We respectfully request that the Northeast Canyons
    and Seamounts Monument be removed and our historic fishing grounds
    restored.

                Sincerely,

                                                   Meghan Lapp,
                                                      Fisheries Liaison

                                     ______

                                 Seafreeze Ltd.

                         North Kingstown, Rhode Island

                                                    August 15, 2017

    Hon. Wilbur Ross, Secretary
    U.S. Department of Commerce
    1401 Constitution Ave., N.W.
    Washington, DC 20230

        Dear Secretary Ross:

        Thank you for undertaking a review of the Northeast Canyons and
    Seamounts Marine Monument enacted by President Obama in 2016. Seafreeze
    Ltd. is a family-owned fishing company based in Rhode Island. We own
    and operate two fishing vessels that freeze at sea, as well as a shore-
    based dealer facility, and are the largest producer and trader of sea
    frozen fish on the U.S. East Coast. Our vessels have fished in the area
    now designated as the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument since
    the 1980s, and derive a considerable amount of our annual revenue from
    that area. The Monument area is our place of business, and since losing
    access to our historic fishing grounds there in 2016, our vessels and
    business have financially suffered as a result.
        We participate extensively in the Regional Fishery Management
    Council process, as established through the Magnuson Stevens Act. This
    process requires certain scientific thresholds for fishery management
    decisions, as well as economic analysis, policy standards, and other
    legal requirements necessary for good decision making. Executive use of
    the Antiquities Act to unilaterally close productive, historic fishing
    grounds and overrule a legally required public fishery management
    process is unacceptable and threatens the future financial stability of
    our business. We cannot have a business plan for the future if our
    historic fishing grounds, and therefore sources of income, can be taken
    away without warning at any given moment.
        On May 17, 2016, we testified to this before the House Committee on
    Natural Resources as the potential for a Marine Monument on our fishing
    grounds was ongoing. See https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
    eventsingle.aspx?EventID= 400425 and https://
    naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/testimony_lapp.pdf. We also
    published an editorial in the September 2016 Massachusetts Lobstermen's
    Association Newsletter, highlighting the scientific and factual
    inaccuracies with pro-Monument claims. See page 22 at http://
    lobstermen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/MLA_WEB_September2016.pdf;
    hard copy attached. Despite any factual evidence or any due process,
    the Monument designation was made and our vessels were forced to leave
    the area.
        Commercial fishing in the United States is a highly regulated
    industry that supports thousands of jobs and communities coast-wide. It
    is also an important food source for our nation. It is a disservice to
    those who economically rely on this resource to strip them of their
    source of income, as well as to remove a food source from the people of
    the United States. We respectfully request that the Northeast Canyons
    and Seamounts Monument be removed and our historic fishing grounds
    restored.

                Sincerely,

                                                   Meghan Lapp,
                                                      Fisheries Liaison

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                                  Meghan Lapp
              on Behalf of Seafreeze Ltd. and Seafreeze Shoreside
                      Regarding Northeast Marine Monument

        My name is Meghan Lapp and I am the General Manager of Seafreeze
    Shoreside, a fish plant in Point Judith, Rhode Island, that unloads
    fresh seafood from commercial fishing vessels. I also serve as the
    Fisheries Liaison for both Seafreeze Shoreside and Seafreeze Ltd., a
    sister facility in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. Our companies own and
    operate three commercial fishing vessels that harvest sustainably
    managed U.S. seafood in the Monument area. In fact, our two freezer
    vessels have sustainably fished the Monument area since the 1980s,
    including for Atlantic butterfish and squid, which are both projected
    to be climate change winners according to the Northeast Fisheries
    Science Center.\1\ For decades, the Monument area has been an extremely
    important fishing ground for our vessels. In certain seasons it can be
    one of our most important harvest areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
    511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/572d00f2c2ea512159 01defa/1462567158802/
    2_ClimateVulnReport_journal.pone.0146756.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In my role as Fisheries Liaison, I serve on two Advisory panels for
    the New England Fisheries Management Council, two Advisory Panels for
    the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and one Advisory Panel for
    the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I continually
    participate in what is a public, transparent and science-based process
    of U.S. fisheries management federally established under the Magnuson
    Stevens Act. Due to this process and strict federal standards, U.S.
    commercial fisheries are the most sustainable fisheries on the planet.
    According to a George Mason University study, U.S. fisheries are the
    7th most regulated industry in the United States, more so than oil and
    gas extraction and more so than pharmaceutical manufacturing.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See https://www.mercatus.org/publications/regulation/
    mclaughlin-sherouse-list-10-most-regulated-industries-2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many of these fisheries regulations are, in fact, spatial as well
    as biological. We do not have the opportunity to relocate our vessels
    to just anywhere; we are highly spatially regulated. When one area
    closes, we do not simply have the ability to relocate due to existing
    closures and regulations established by the regional Fishery Management
    Councils. Arbitrary executive closures such as the Marine Monument with
    no analysis of impacts to affected users have huge economic impacts on
    our vessels, their future viability, and therefore our land-based
    facilities. Loss of opportunity is not just a loss of opportunity in
    that area. The cumulative effects of new and existing closures,
    combined with the basic reality of fisheries that fish are migratory
    and are not found evenly dispersed in time and space, means that you
    can create a situation where you have fully removed all fishing
    opportunity for a species, time or season.
        To do that arbitrarily and behind closed doors with no analysis of
    impacts to fishing communities puts the survivability of those affected
    businesses and communities in danger. Our vessels support a lot of
    American working families. Our land-based facilities do the same. Our
    land-based facilities provide good paying and steady jobs to a lot of
    environmental justice communities-those people from minority
    demographics with little education or resources other than their work
    ethic. We provide them the opportunity to make a living and support a
    family. Without fish coming through the doors of our plants, those
    people have no jobs, and they don't have the same opportunity as more
    highly educated or skilled workers to just simply find work elsewhere.
    As I said, Seafreeze vessels have sustainably harvested fish in the
    Monument area for decades. Because we do harvest sustainably and
    responsibly, that area remains pristine and productive. Our fishermen
    should be commended and rewarded, not punished, as a result.
        Both the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the New
    England Fishery Management Council have, through the federal fishery
    management process, approved sweeping conservation measures in their
    Coral Amendments, one of which actually covers the vast majority of the
    Monument area.\3\ These habitat protection measures were developed over
    years of scientific analysis, deliberation and public participation
    from a wide spectrum of stakeholders. The Antiquities Act was never
    developed or intended for use in managing fisheries. While it is
    certainly appropriate in some applications, it is not a sustainable way
    to manage our fisheries resources, whether fish or people. The Magnuson
    Act was developed specifically to manage these resources, in a
    scientifically based manner, and that science includes social science
    and economic science. The Antiquities Act contains no such standards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See https://www.nefmc.org/library/omnibus-deep-sea-coral-
    amendment and https://www. mafmc.org/actions/msb-am16.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We support the continuance of federal fisheries management under
    the Magnuson Act, rather than the Antiquities Act. To move from a
    transparent and science-based process to a closed-door executive
    process with no scientific deliberation would be a move backwards
    rather than forwards for our nation's fisheries resources. I know that
    the Biden Administration has stated that it will manage by science. I
    hope this includes the fisheries science and social sciences of the
    Magnuson Act over the non-scientific edicts of the Antiquities Act. The
    Monument area has supported healthy, productive and well-managed
    fisheries for decades, providing pure, organic food for the American
    people and supporting jobs up and down our East Coast. We hope that it
    will continue to do so for many decades to come and that the
    Administration will value our nation's hard working fishing industry,
    value our jobs, value domestic food production and value the federal
    fisheries process that sustains it. We respectfully request that the
    Biden Administration continue to allow our fisheries to be managed
    under the Magnuson Act rather than the Antiquities Act. Thank you for
    the opportunity to comment.

                                     ______

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stansbury

                          Aleut Community of St. Paul

                                                 September 22, 2023

    House Committee on Natural Resources
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Gosar and Ranking Member Stansbury:

        The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island (ACSPI) submits this letter
    and attachment to the record for the September 19, 2023 hearing
    entitled ``Examining Barriers to Access in Federal Waters: A Closer
    Look at the Marine Sanctuary and Monument System.''
        The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island is the title by which the
    federal government formally recognizes our tribal sovereignty; a nation
    born, living, and self-governing before the United States was
    conceived. Our Tribal Government is the venue through which Unangax of
    St. Paul Island can fulfill our intrinsic rights and responsibilities,
    and support, recollect, practice, and pass on our culture. The ACSPI
    Tribal Government promotes, maintains, and protects cultural practices,
    awareness, preservation, self-governance, and self-determination for
    the tribal members of ACSPI.
        ACSPI elevates Tribal voices and Indigenous Knowledge in management
    decisions that affect our terrestrial and marine resources, and the
    decision to pursue a nomination of a national marine sanctuary in our
    waters is part of that effort. We understand that our submission has
    engendered concern and misunderstanding, much of which has been voiced
    from outside our region. To address these concerns, we are continuing
    outreach efforts to help ensure that marine conservation efforts,
    including the potential for a sanctuary designation, are aligned with
    the needs of the Pribilof Unangax.
        In addition, ACSPI is working with federal agencies to reach a
    common understanding about co-management and commercial fisheries
    management. In part, these conversations should help ensure that a
    sanctuary, if designated, would be equitable and responsive to the
    economic, cultural, and other needs of our people. To very clear, ACSPI
    has no intention of using a sanctuary nomination to undermine the North
    Pacific Fishery Management Council process. We would not agree to the
    designation of a sanctuary that did so, and it is clear based on a
    plain reading of the law and historical precedent that the National
    Marine Sanctuaries Act creates a legal pathway to prevent
    ``undermining'' that process.
        ACSPI was not notified of this hearing or invited to participate.
    It is noteworthy that there was no participant from our region. By
    contrast, we have attached a letter sent to members of the fishing
    industry, Community Development Quota entities, including Coastal
    Villages Region Fund, and several others. The letter was sent in
    response to a letter those entities submitted to National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration Administrator Spinrad on March 24, 2023. It
    explains the efforts being undertaken by ACSPI and is intended to
    foster a dialogue among those who believe they are affected. We are
    firm in our belief that open, respectful, and clear lines communication
    and understanding are the best way forward.

                Sincerely,

                                      Amos T. Philemonoff, Sr.,
                                                              President

                                     *****

                                   ATTACHMENT

                          Aleut Community of St. Paul

                                                      July 18, 2023

        Dear Colleagues:

        The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island Tribal Government has
    received a copy of the letter you submitted to Administrator Spinrad on
    March 24, 2023. We appreciate the explanation of your concerns and hope
    that this correspondence can be the reopening of a dialogue among us.
    We write directly to you, in the spirit of collaboration and respect,
    with the intention of providing context, sharing information, and
    seeking common ground.
        The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island (ACSPI) is the title by
    which the federal government of the United States formally recognizes
    our tribal sovereignty; a nation born, living, and self-governing
    before the United States was conceived. Our Tribal Government is the
    venue through which Unangan (``The People of the Sea'' or ``The Aleut
    Peoples'') of St. Paul Island can fulfill our intrinsic rights and
    responsibilities, and support, recollect, practice, and pass on our
    culture. The ACSPI Tribal Government promotes, maintains, and protects
    cultural practices, awareness, preservation, self-governance, and self-
    determination for the tribal members of ACSPI.
        Unangax have stewarded our ocean and its resources long before
    there were commercial fisheries or government agencies. While there may
    be other ties to our community, we represent our people and bear
    witness to economic challenges, the need for cultural connection, and a
    rapidly changing marine environment. We have taken, and will continue
    to take, the steps necessary to ensure a vibrant future for the people
    of St. Paul Island.
        As part of fulfilling that commitment to our people, we chose to
    submit a nomination for a National Marine Sanctuary in our waters. We
    did so after we conducted extensive research and in consideration of
    the tools available to us to elevate Unangax voices in management
    decisions that affect our ocean and resources. We believe that a
    sanctuary could provide funds and a public profile that can enhance
    tribal-led research; locally led tourism and education activities;
    workforce development, including jobs within a sanctuary office in the
    Pribilof Islands; and improved co-management of our marine resources.
    Additionally, our marine area is recognized as an incredibly productive
    and richly diverse habitat; designation would provide formal
    recognition for the area and honor the waters our people have stewarded
    for millennia.
        Through the process of pursuing sanctuary designation, we have come
    to realize there are a number of shared questions and concerns related
    to co-management and commercial fisheries. We seek to work
    collaboratively with the federal government, fishing industry, and our
    community to answer those questions and create a shared and supported
    understanding. We hope that this letter provides additional clarity and
    evidences our commitment to collaboration and cooperation.
    Co-Management

        We are committed to co-management that incorporates Indigenous and
    local knowledge into resource management decisions and facilitates
    approaches that are more culturally and ecologically appropriate. This
    includes consensus decision-making, equitable representation, and a
    true partnership between federally recognized tribes and the federal
    government at the highest levels. We believe that the sanctuary process
    creates a path to government-to-government agreement that can
    effectuate this goal and elevate our Tribal Government management
    perspectives to an equal level with federal partners.
        As a people who have endured decades of distrust at the hands of
    the federal government, we too seek clarification about what co-
    management means to the U.S. federal government. We seek a commitment
    to equitable, consensus-driven co-management decision-making authority
    in which responsibilities are shared among the tribal and non-tribal
    government signatories. It remains to be seen whether the federal
    government shares those goals.
        Unequivocally, we do not seek to use a co-management agreement to
    change the fishery management process in any way. We share some of the
    same questions you have expressed about the mechanisms that might be
    used or limits that might be applicable. Again, we are working to
    address these questions in a collaborative way and would not support
    designation of a sanctuary that created economic or other hardship by
    affecting fishery management.
    Management of Commercial Fisheries in a Sanctuary

        As has been stated on several occasions, ACSPI has no intention of
    using a sanctuary nomination to undermine the North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council (the Council) process. We would not agree to the
    designation of a sanctuary that did so, and we believe that the
    National Marine Sanctuaries Act creates a legal pathway to prevent the
    concern you express about the potential for ``undermining'' that
    process. We agree that the federal government should be very explicit
    about the primacy of the Magnuson-Stevens Act process and have been
    working with the federal government to do so. We will not support the
    designation of a sanctuary until we have this assurance, and we would
    welcome your ideas about how best to achieve it.
        Similarly, concerns have been expressed that assurances or
    partnership with ACSPI is insufficient because the federal government
    could proceed to designate a sanctuary or change fisheries management
    even without ACSPI's support or consent. We agree with these concerns
    and agree that designation and any future management decisions or
    changes should be undertaken with participation from the Council and
    broad public engagement. Moreover, a co-management agreement would
    ensure that ACSPI will be engaged in any designation and ongoing
    management of a sanctuary.
        Finally, to the extent we seek changes in fishery management, we
    are committed to working through the Council process to achieve them.
    We do believe, for example, that western science and our traditional
    and Indigenous knowledge show that there is some level of prey
    competition between lactating female fur seals and commercial fishing
    during the B season. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this
    science and explore potential actions that could be supported in the
    Council process to alleviate competition that may be occurring.
        It is our priority to get clarification from the federal government
    on these issues, and we do not seek to advance a sanctuary without the
    needed assurances. We understand and appreciate the importance of
    commercial fisheries and other economic opportunities for St. Paul, and
    we will not participate in a designation or other process that puts
    those opportunities at risk.
        A sanctuary nomination is only one part of our work to ensure the
    economic, environmental, and cultural future of Unangan. While seeking
    clarification from the federal government on the issues above, we
    continue to work through existing processes to advance shared community
    priorities related to northern fur seals, birds, local fisheries,
    science, marine debris, and other ocean issues. In all these efforts,
    we intend to move forward together with Tribal, industry, and other
    partners.
        We appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter and hope that
    we can have an ongoing dialogue about these issues. Our door is open,
    and we remain available to explore collaboration, seek answers to
    questions, and to hear concerns.

                Sincerely,

                                      Amos T. Philemonoff, Sr.,
                                                              President

                                     [all]