[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:  [email protected]

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:  [email protected]

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]