[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]