U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–866 PDF 2016

THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF 

PENDING MARINE NATIONAL 

MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, September 29, 2015 

Serial No. 114–21 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, September 29, 2015 ..................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bamford, Holly, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, Maryland ..................................... 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 17 

Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors 

Association, Portland, Oregon ...................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Oliver, Chris, Executive Director, North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, Anchorage, Alaska ......................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Rosenberg, Andrew A., Ph.D., Director, Center for Science and 

Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists, Two Battle Square, 

Cambridge, Massachusetts ........................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 24 

Williams, Jon, Owner, Atlantic Red Crab Company, New Bedford, 

Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Northeast Seafood Coalition, Letter dated September 23, 2015 from over 

1,500 fishermen and community residents to the President ..................... 2 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE POTENTIAL 

IMPLICATIONS OF PENDING MARINE 

NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS 

Tuesday, September 29, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming, 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, Young, Gosar, LaMalfa, 

Graves, MacArthur; Huffman, Costa, Sablan, Lowenthal, Torres, 

and Dingell. 

Also Present: Representative Radewagen. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

will come to order. 

The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee meets today to hear 

testimony on an oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘The Potential 

Implications of Pending Marine National Monument Designations.’’ 

Before we begin, I ask for unanimous consent to allow our 

colleague and committee member, Congresswoman Amata 

Radewagen, to participate in our hearing today. I do not see her; 

but anyway, hearing no objections, so ordered. 

We will begin with our opening statements. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Dr. FLEMING. Today the Subcommittee on Water, Power and 

Oceans will look at the lesser known side of the Antiquities Act, 

the designation of marine national monuments. Like the designation of land-based national monuments, marine monuments could 

have significant impacts, not just regionally, but nationwide as 

well. 

Many of our colleagues here today represent noncoastal districts. 

However, we can all relate to the issue when a president abuses 

the Antiquities Act as a means to shut off multiple uses of lands 

and waters. This is a tool that President Obama has used more 

than any other president to date. Just because the Antiquities Act 

has been used by Republican presidents, does not justify such 

closures. 

While there are not any marine national monuments currently 

being considered off of the coast of my home state of Louisiana, 

there are potential impacts that such a designation could have on 

our multiple industries and our world renowned restaurants. 

While more than 30,000 Louisiana jobs are directly supported by 

the seafood industry, Massachusetts’ and Alaska’s seafood 

2 

industries support more than 160,000 jobs that will be directly 

impacted by potential designations that are now on the table. 

One of our witnesses here today directly employs 150 of these 

workers himself, all of whom would be affected by a marine 

national monument designation. 

What is really most troubling here is that these areas already 

have a great deal of protections under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

These are longstanding protections that have the support of over 

1,500 fishermen and community residents in New England, all of 

whom are opposed to a potential marine national monument off 

their coast. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter their letter into the record. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The letter from New England fishermen and community 

residents follows:] 

September 23, 2015 

The President 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20500 

Mr. President: 

We, the undersigned, in conjunction with the Fisheries Survival Fund and the 

Northeast Seafood Coalition, object to any attempt to manage New England’s offshore marine habitats through the use of the Antiquities Act and the designation 

of National Monuments. Doing so undermines the public and democratic processes 

that are now in place to manage these areas, shuts out important stakeholders, and 

prevents meaningful outside input. Considering that the current public process has 

led to the substantial habitat protections already in place throughout the region, 

such a designation is both unnecessary and damaging to the long-term management 

of these areas. 

New England’s marine habitats are currently managed through a consultative 

process that considers the experience and input of expert scientists, fishermen, 

environmentalists, and regulators. It is where the best available science and analytical approaches are vetted in an open and transparent venue. Large-scale closures, 

enacted by executive fiat and not based in science, are not only undemocratic but 

they can have substantial unintended adverse impacts on bycatch composition, 

region-wide habitat, and the economies of coastal communities. 

Recent actions by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), 

specifically the recently passed Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) reinforce 

habitat protections in New England waters into the foreseeable future. 

In addition to protecting features such as the kelp forests on Cashes Ledge under 

OHA2, the regional management councils have gone to great lengths to further safeguard essential habitats such as corals. The NEFMC is considering the Deep-Sea 

Coral Amendment, which would preserve the coral habitats in the New England 

Canyons and Seamounts, areas that have also been frequently under discussion for 

National Monument designation. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(MAFMC) also recently acted to protect over 38,000 square miles of deep-sea coral. 

These are clear demonstrations that current habitat management is remarkably 

sensitive to conservation and the need to protect unique habitats. 

3 

Replacing this collaborative, open management with top-down Presidential action 

undermines these successful efforts. It makes it less likely that local voices are 

heard in the deliberations, narrows the decision-making process from broadly democratic to single-handed, and in consequence disregards crucial stakeholder input and 

expertise. It ultimately results in a regulatory process that is not responsive to 

feedback and is not accountable to the people who are most affected by it. 

As members of the fishing communities whose livelihoods depend on inclusive, 

responsive management we recognize that such a fundamental altering of the regulatory process is unacceptable. Any management of public resources needs to 

preserve public input and involvement, not disregard it. We oppose unilateral 

Executive Action to declare marine National Monuments in New England. 

Sincerely, 

[This letter contains 74 pages of signatures.

The complete list of names is available in the Committee’s official files.] 

cc: Hon. Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce 

Hon. Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere 

Eileen Sobeck, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

Dr. FLEMING. Another area we will be looking at today, the 

Aleutian Islands in Alaska, was submitted through NOAA’s 

National Marine Sanctuary Public Nomination Process for additional protections and was denied because the proposal did not 

demonstrate the support from a ‘‘breadth of community interests.’’ 

Now, those same special interests are trying to take a second bite 

at the apple by petitioning the President to designate an even 

larger area as a marine national monument. 

While we will hear today that the impact of these potential designations would be devastating to the local communities and economies, there is much more at stake here. According to Federal 

statistics, the North Pacific and New England rank one and two in 

total landings revenue by region, well over half of the U.S. harvested seafood landings. The only thing monumental in all of this 

is the staggering impact it could have on our seafood markets. 

This is an important issue, and we are privileged today to hear 

from on-the-ground experts. I look forward to hearing from them 

and from the Administration on its plans. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans will look at a lesser known 

side of the Antiquities Act: the designation of marine national monuments. 

Like the designation of land-based national monuments, marine monuments could 

have significant impacts not just regionally but nationwide as well. 

Many of my colleagues here today represent noncoastal districts, however we can 

all relate to the issue when a president abuses the Antiquities Act as a means to 

shut off multiple uses of lands and waters. This is a tool that President Obama has 

used more than any other American president to date. Just because the Antiquities 

Act has been used by Republican presidents does not justify such closures. 

While there aren’t any marine national monuments currently being considered off 

of the coast of my home state of Louisiana, there are potential impacts that such 

a designation could have on our multiple industries and our world renowned restaurants. While more than 30,000 Louisiana jobs are directly supported by the 

seafood industry, Massachusetts and Alaska’s seafood industries support more than 

160,000 jobs that will be directly impacted by potential designations that are now 

4 

on the table. One of our witnesses here today directly employs 150 of these workers 

himself—all of whom would be effected by a marine national monument designation. 

What is really most troubling here is that these areas already have a great deal 

of protections under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These are longstanding protections 

that have the support of over 1,500 fishermen and community residents in New 

England—all of whom are opposed to a potential marine national monument off 

their coast. I ask unanimous consent to enter their letter into the record. 

Another area we will be looking at today—the Aleutian Islands in Alaska—was 

submitted through NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Public Nomination Process 

for additional protections and was denied as the proposal did not demonstrate the 

support from a ‘‘breadth of community interests.’’ Now, those same special interests 

are trying to take a second bite at the apple by petitioning the President to designate an even larger area as a marine national monument. 

While we will hear today that the impact of these potential designations would 

be devastating to the local communities and economies, there is much more at stake 

here. According to Federal statistics, the North Pacific and New England rank one 

and two in total landings revenue by region—well over half of U.S. harvested seafood landings. The only thing monumental in all of this is the staggering impact it 

could have on our seafood markets. 

This is an important issue and we are privileged today to hear from on-the-ground 

experts. I look forward to hearing from them and from the Administration on its 

plans. 

Dr. FLEMING. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Huffman, for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. 

In 1903, a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, made his first 

trip to the Grand Canyon in Arizona, which at the time was under 

significant threat of damage from the mining industry and other 

development interests. Roosevelt lacked legal authority to protect 

the area at the time; but in a speech during that visit, he publicly 

pleaded for its conservation saying, ‘‘I want to ask you to keep this 

great wonder of nature as it is now. I hope you will not have a 

building of any kind, not a summer cottage, a hotel or anything 

else, to mar the wonderful grandeur, the sublimity, the great loneliness and beauty of the canyon. Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only 

mar it.’’ 

Three years later, a Republican Congress passed the Antiquities 

Act, which gave President Roosevelt the authority to dedicate 

national monuments, to preserve our country’s natural and cultural 

heritage. In 1908, he used it by dedicating the Grand Canyon 

National Monument. It later became a national park, and it is protected in perpetuity for the benefit of all Americans. 

A century after President Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act 

into law, another Republican president, George W. Bush, dedicated 

the first marine national monument around the Northwest 

Hawaiian Islands. Subsequent marine monument and sanctuary 

designations and expansions by Presidents Bush and Obama have 

increased the amount of U.S. waters protected from development to 

nearly 3 percent, but that total still lags far behind the 10 percent 

of U.S. lands that have been set aside for conservation. That is a 

shame because America’s coral reefs, kelp forests, and submarine 

5 

canyons have incredible value as fish factories, as banks of 

biodiversity. 

Protecting these resources will actually lead to more productive 

fisheries and more opportunities for scientific observations and discoveries that could benefit all of us. I fear that the Majority is holding today’s hearing in an attempt to pit conservation interests 

against the fishing industry. 

I think most Americans reject that as a false choice. In fact, fishermen in my district overwhelmingly supported last year’s expansion of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National 

Marine Sanctuaries off the coast of my district. They understand 

what marine scientists also understand, and that is that protecting 

key habitats can improve fisheries in adjacent areas, leading to 

healthier coastal economies. 

Just last month, I had the pleasure of catching the fish you see 

in that picture in one of our national marine sanctuaries. That was 

in the Gulf of the Farallones Sanctuary off the Coast of Marin 

County. 

So, obviously, the notion that you cannot fish in marine 

sanctuaries certainly has not been my experience. 

Republican presidents from Roosevelt to Bush, and many in between, recognize the importance of the Antiquities Act in creating 

a balance between the use of U.S. public lands and waters for resource extraction and protecting those areas for future generations. 

Who knows what might have happened without the national 

monuments established under the Antiquities Act. Would 

Americans today enjoy their views of the Grand Canyon Copper 

Mine, the Muir Woods giant redwood clear-cut, or the Dinosaur 

National oil field? 

Thankfully, instead of that we have the protection of national 

monuments in these areas, and it does not seem to have caused a 

shortage of land available for the extractive industries. It is completely appropriate for us to move toward a similar balance with 

respect to utilization of our ocean resources. 

I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, by offering another quote 

from President Teddy Roosevelt, ‘‘The nation behaves well if it 

treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to 

the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.’’ 

We are still trying to understand our oceans. They cover 

70 percent of our planet’s surface, but we have only explored 

5 percent of their depths. Every day we make new discoveries that 

have the potential to benefit future generations, but the potential 

for those discoveries is limited when we allow unchecked resource 

exploitation without setting aside representative areas for conservation and further study. 

Particularly in the face of climate change and ocean acidification, 

we must use whatever authorities are available to us to ensure 

that our ocean ecosystems remain healthy and productive. 

I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes our Vice Chair, Dr. Gosar, for a 

statement. 

6 

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

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing brings together those concerned about the 

sweeping powers allowed under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Well 

over a century old, the law is in desperate need of modernization. 

The West, of course, is all too familiar with national monuments 

and not in a good way. In Arizona, a state with more national 

monuments than any other state in the Union, extremist environmental organizations, and some misguided members of our own 

state’s congressional delegation, have been pushing the President 

to circumvent Congress and to make a new 1.7 million acre designation using the Antiquities Act in the Grand Canyon watershed. 

The real intentions of these short-sighted, self-interest groups 

are clear. They want these designations to prevent energy development, timber harvesting, grazing, mining, and different types of 

recreation on massive swaths of land. 

Earlier this year, the House passed an amendment that I helped 

to spearhead, which would prevent the President from circumventing Congress to carry out such a declaration on the Antiquities 

Act. When President Clinton single-handedly designated the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah—he announced 

this move from a mountaintop in Arizona, I might add—it sent 

shockwaves of presidential abuse. Now, our domestic ocean waters 

have joined the party. 

The prior administration mistakenly created our first national 

marine monuments, yet this President seems to be on steroids 

when it comes to expanding marine monuments and creating land 

monuments. He has single-handedly walled off over 260 million 

acres of land and 430,000 square miles of ocean in his wake; and 

as we will hear today, there could be more to come with the stroke 

of a pen under the cover of darkness. 

Arizona is not exactly known as a seafood harvest mecca, but we 

have plenty of consumers who depend on the ocean’s bounty. Our 

food supply is already being compromised by natural drought and 

land and water regulations, and now we have an environmental activist using a deeply flawed law in an attempt to close commercial 

fishing off the coasts of Alaska and New England. It is no doubt 

they are banking on this Administration for help. 

The Administration, in my opinion, showed its true colors when 

it recently held a town meeting in Providence, Rhode Island to hear 

public input on a proposed, nearby marine monument. One witness 

before us today called the meeting a ‘‘charade’’ that provided little 

details to the public. 

The meeting was not broadcast on radio, television, or on the 

Web, unintentionally symbolic of an era in which the Antiquities 

Act was created. The agency before us today, NOAA, needs to explain this pitiful process despite its President once saying that it 

would be the ‘‘most transparent ever.’’ 

The Antiquities Act, at the very least, should be brought into the 

21st century and needs to stop being a relic hijacked by those bent 

upon restricting access and jobs. Taxpayers deserve better; landowners deserve better; fishermen deserve better; and dock workers, 

among many, deserve better. 

7 

This hearing is a step toward giving those a voice that this 

Administration chooses to ignore. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Today’s hearing brings together those concerned about the sweeping powers 

allowed under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Well over a century old, the law is in 

desperate need of modernization. 

The West, of course, is all too familiar with national monuments and not in a good 

way. When President Clinton single-handedly designated the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument in Utah—he announced this move from a mountaintop in Arizona, I might add—it sent shockwaves of presidential abuse. Now, our 

domestic ocean waters have joined the party. 

The prior administration mistakenly created our first national marine 

monuments, yet this President seems to be on steroids when it comes to expanding 

marine monuments and creating land monuments. He has single-handedly walled 

off over 260 million acres of land and 403,000 total square miles of ocean in his 

wake. And, as we will hear today, there could be more to come with the stroke of 

a pen under the cover of darkness. 

Arizona isn’t exactly known as a seafood harvest mecca, but we have plenty of 

consumers who depend on the ocean’s bounty. Our food supply is already being compromised by natural drought and land and water regulation and now we have environmental activists using a deeply flawed law in an attempt to close commercial 

fishing off the coasts of Alaska and New England. It’s no doubt they are banking 

on this Administration to help. 

The Administration, in my opinion, showed its true colors when it recently held 

a town meeting in Providence, Rhode Island to hear public input on a proposed 

nearby marine monument. One witness before us today called the meeting a 

‘‘charade’’ that provided little details to the public. The meeting was not broadcast 

on radio, television or on the web—unintentionally symbolic of the era creating the 

Antiquities Act. The agency before us today—NOAA—needs to explain this pitiful 

process despite its President once saying that it would be the ‘‘most transparent 

ever.’’ 

The Antiquities Act, at the very least, should be brought into the 21st century 

and needs to stop being a relic hijacked by those bent upon restricting access and 

jobs. Taxpayers deserve better. Landowners deserve better. Fishermen deserve better. And dock workers, among the many, deserve better. 

This hearing is a step toward giving those a voice that this Administration 

chooses to ignore. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

We have also been joined today by Mr. Sablan, former Ranking 

Member of the subcommittee that I was Chairman of before this 

Congress, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that he sit 

on the dais with us. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

OK. We have our witnesses today, but before we introduce our 

witnesses, I just want to let you know that we do have a time system here. You have 5 minutes for your testimony; you will be 

under a green light for 4 minutes, then a yellow light for 1 minute. 

Once the red light comes on, we ask that you quickly conclude your 

opening statement. 

Your prepared statement, no matter how long it is, will be entered into the record completely. So, no need to rush through it, 

just use up your 5 minutes as you will and we will put your entire 

statement into the record. 

The Chair now calls upon Mr. Young for a couple of introductions 

this morning. 

8 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate this 

hearing and I think it is crucially important. I have two witnesses 

on this panel. 

We have Chris Oliver, Executive Director of the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, who has done an outstanding job. 

More than that, we have Rod Moore—and just to give you a little 

background, Mr. Moore worked for me for numerous years, helped 

write the Magnuson-Stevens Act for fisheries and for the sustainable yield, and it benefited communities, not for monuments, and 

he is retiring. I hate to hear that. He will probably get a fishing 

boat and go fishing on one of these monuments, but, Rod, thank 

you for all of your service to the United States and to the state of 

Alaska and, of course, the state of Oregon. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. We have further introductions. First of all, we 

have Mr. Jon Williams, owner of the Atlantic Red Crab Company 

in New Bedford, Massachusetts. 

Your names are very tiny. I hope I am getting this in proper 

order. I cannot read them from here. 

Dr. Holly Bamford, the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and 

Management for the National Ocean Service in Silver Spring, 

Maryland. 

Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and 

Democracy with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. 

Mr. Rod Moore, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood 

Processors Association in Portland, Oregon. 

And, of course, previously introduced, Mr. Chris Oliver, 

Executive Director of the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, based out of Anchorage, Alaska. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Williams for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JON WILLIAMS, OWNER, ATLANTIC RED CRAB 

COMPANY, NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

here, and an honor. 

Dr. FLEMING. It is important to bring the tip of the microphone 

close to you, otherwise we cannot pick up your voice. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. OK. My name is Jon Williams. I am the founder 

and owner of the Atlantic Red Crab Company. It is a vertically integrated crab company. We own our own vessels and catch our own 

crab; and we process, package, and distribute it around the country. We are the largest crabmeat company in North America. We 

employ about 160 people, a little over 150 this week, I guess. 

This, obviously, is a very troubling time for me and my company 

in kind of going through this process. I just want to say that it is 

the process that is troubling, because as I built my company, I had 

numerous, numerous opportunities to testify and get involved with 

the fishery management councils, both the New England Fishery 

Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, and sat on many committees and in many, many fairly 

rowdy conversations between fishermen and environmentalists in 

the same room. 

9 

But at the end of the day, the system, as flawed as some people 

think it is, works and it has worked for many years. It works because there are two different opinions in the room, and both people 

get the opportunity to speak their own opinion, and generally if you 

say there are two sides to every story, the truth falls someplace in 

between. 

We have for many years, and even as recently as 3 months ago, 

participated in an over 2-year process when they wrote a whiting 

amendment or squid amendment in the Mid-Atlantic that resulted 

in protecting 38,000 square miles of ocean floor for exactly what we 

are asking for today, and it was 38,000 miles of coral protection. 

My fishing company and I have been exempted for 2 years from 

those four large areas. I do not know what my future will be down 

there after 2 years—that is still up in the air, but we were part 

of the process, and the fishermen were part of the process. We had 

a 2-day workshop with the environmentalists, regulators, and fishermen all in the room. We had charts up on the wall. There were 

dozens and dozens and dozens of charts of where we are moving 

lines, and fishermen would be able to participate. 

Now, just 3 months later, the first I heard about this was the 

week before the town hall meeting, when somebody called me up 

and said, ‘‘What do you know about this monument thing going 

on? ’’ And I said, ‘‘I don’t know anything about it,’’ and nobody else 

did. I actually ended up getting a call from one of the environmental groups that is spearheading this asking me if I was going 

to attend and, of course, I was. 

The problem that is tough is the perception that something has 

to be done here and this is an emergency, that these areas are 

going to be faced with irreparable harm; and that if we do not do 

something right now, that these places are going to go away. 

That is what people are being told in the fact sheets that are 

going out to millions of people. Fishermen are going to fish deeper. 

Oil companies are coming in, and everything else. 

I mean, we are already as deep as we want to fish. There is nothing deeper than where we are, and we have the technology to go 

a lot deeper, but it is an abyss. There is really nothing for us to 

go after or we would be there. 

Eighty percent of the area that is being proposed is deeper than 

anybody fishes. It is really the fringe of the area. But we have yet 

to see a chart, so we do not really know what the area looks like. 

We have yet to see one line drawn on a nautical chart on where 

this is going to be and where the radius is going to be. 

So now, we have had petitions go back and forth. I think it is 

very unfortunate that 160 people signed a petition because of being 

given some false information. 

That is really the big thing. There are places that are described 

as being pristine, and they are pristine and they need to be protected. There are four fisheries that have been in those areas for 

40 years. If they go out there in these deepwater submersibles and 

they do not find any damage, I do not think that this is an 

emergency. 

I think this should go through the normal process with the New 

England Council where we have mechanisms in place for everybody 

to get their opinions out there. That is the American way. 

10 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JON WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, ATLANTIC RED CRAB COMPANY

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Jon Williams and I’m the 

owner of a small business that fishes for Atlantic red crab off the New England 

coast. I thank you for the opportunity to speak about the threat to my livelihood 

that is posed by the pending marine national monument designation along the edge 

of the Continental Shelf off New England. 

Twenty years ago I started my crab fishing business from nothing; today I employ 

approximately 150 people in New Bedford, MA and feel confident that at least 

5 million people each year enjoy the crab I produce, despite the fact that the red 

crab fishery is a very small fishery. 

More importantly, however, the Atlantic red crab fishery is proud to be an industry leader in sustainable fishing. In 2009, our fishery was the first on the Atlantic 

coast of the United States to be certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship 

Council. This certification process required a thorough review of the impact of the 

fishery on the red crab resource and its habitat along the edge of the Continental 

Shelf off the coast of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. Although this process cost hundreds of thousands of dollars—a significant amount for a small business 

to pay out of pocket—it was important to us that we both understood how our fishery impacted the environment and demonstrated that our practices were indeed 

sustainable. 

The findings of the MSC certification process were indisputable: the Atlantic red 

crab fishery had minimal environmental impact on both the species stock and the 

surrounding environment, and set a clear example of how a commercial fishery 

could operate in a truly sustainable manner. Red crab is also listed as an ‘‘OceanFriendly’’ seafood by the New England Aquarium’s Seafood Guide program. 

Now, 6 years later, NOAA Regional Administrator John Bullard an audience in 

Providence, RI that the Obama administration wants to designate three Continental 

Shelf canyons and four seamounts as a ‘‘National Monument,’’ a move that would 

likely exclude the red crab fishery from its traditional fishing grounds. Despite the 

fact that a NOAA request for public comments on the proposal states a desire ‘‘to 

ensure that we protect these unique places for future generations while recognizing 

the importance of sustainable ocean-based economies,’’ there has been no meaningful opportunity to achieve that balance because the public has not been given any 

information on the details of the proposal. Mr. Bullard indicated to the press that 

no further details were likely before the President made his decision. 

The hastily arranged and poorly advertised ‘‘Town Meeting’’ hosted by NOAA in 

Providence on September 15 was a charade. With no details available, the fishermen 

whose livelihoods are at stake could not comment intelligently on the proposal, 

other than to express their fear that it would harm their businesses. On the other 

side, the people who bought the environmentalists’ propaganda would have been 

happy to support anything that they believed would protect the oceans, because they 

didn’t know and didn’t care about the details, or about who would be hurt 

unnecessarily. 

The most troublesome thing about the use of the Antiquities Act to create marine 

national monuments is the complete lack of meaningful public input. The current 

proposal entirely circumvents the public processes outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative Procedures Act, and numerous 

Executive Orders that were intended to protect the public against arbitrary rulemaking. In the fishing industry, we are also governed by the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act. These laws insure that stakeholders 

have input into difficult and complex public policy questions. In the case of imminent threats, the Secretary of Commerce can always declare emergency regulations, 

which are followed by a more deliberative solution to whatever problem caused the 

emergency. In 1999, I asked for emergency action to protect the red crab fishery 

from overfishing. The New England Fishery Management Council then replaced the 

emergency rules with a carefully constructed fishery management plan based on extensive public input. We protected the resource without trampling on the laws that 

guard the public process. 

There is no need to abandon NEPA and the APA to protect marine areas. The 

established public process was used by the regional fishery management councils to 

protect more than 61,000 square miles of ocean bottom off the South Atlantic and 

Mid-Atlantic coasts. The New England Fishery Management Council is developing 

its own regulations to protect deep-sea corals even as we speak. In June 2015, when 

the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council used the established process to 

11 

protect 38,000 square miles of ocean bottom off the Mid-Atlantic coast, NOAA 

Regional Administrator Bullard praised the collaborative process and its result, citing it as a model for future ocean policy development. Mr. Bullard’s words will ring 

hollow if the President closes our fishing grounds with no meaningful public process. 

While the Antiquities Act of 1906 was undoubtedly conceived with the best intentions, a conglomerate of wealthy environmental activists has realized its potential 

to circumvent the normal public processes and lock up large areas of the ocean— 

a convenient loophole that ignores any public deliberation. 

As an industry that has worked tirelessly to serve as a model for sustainable fishing, we are not threatened by a public discussion of ocean conservation. Instead, it 

is the willingness of these environmental groups to ignore all public processes that 

we firmly stand against. 

There are no imminent threats to the Continental Shelf Canyons or the Atlantic 

seamounts from the Atlantic red crab industry or the other fisheries that operate 

in the proposed area. After spending millions of taxpayer dollars exploring and 

photographing these canyons, there has yet to be one shred of evidence of any damage caused by red crab fishing gear—even the supporters of the proposal have called 

these areas ‘‘pristine’’ after 40 years of red crab fishing. 

By displacing the Atlantic red crab fishery, the proposed national monument 

would harm the future of sustainable fishing—if a leader in sustainability can be 

irreparably harmed with no public process, then other fisheries will see few incentives to decrease their own environmental impact. 

Finally, the current proposal is also concerning because it has generated support 

based on faulty information. With billions of dollars in assets, the environmental organizations have demonstrated both an ability and a willingness to buy the support 

of concerned citizens through the use of misleading Web sites and ‘‘fact sheets.’’ For 

example, the video used to extoll the beauty of the proposed area wasn’t even shot 

in the proposed area—instead it was shot in Block Canyon 100 miles to the west. 

Careful editing hid this deception from the public and from policymakers. 

The promotional materials further misled citizens in a discussion of right whales, 

claiming that designating the canyons would protect the species. Yet right whales 

are not known to travel in these canyons; they travel in much shallower waters— 

exactly where all of the displaced fishing gear will end up if forced out of the canyons. With this in mind, it becomes apparent that the proposed monument areas 

will undoubtedly be detrimental to the fragile right whale population. 

Our Founding Fathers recognized the danger to the Republic of ‘‘factions,’’ and relied upon representative government to overcome that threat. As well-meaning as 

the Antiquities Act might have been when it was first adopted in 1906, it is clearly 

being misused and abused by ‘‘factions’’ who know that their overzealous attacks on 

environmentally benign fisheries would never pass muster in a more rigorous process. 

There is no need to exclude the historic commercial fishermen from the proposed 

marine national monument off New England. To the contrary, commercial fisheries 

provide the most tangible benefit to the public from these areas and commercial 

fishermen are part of the national heritage that needs to be preserved. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act can assure that fisheries that operate in this area are sustainable. In fact, I would suggest that any 

marine national monument designation include language to assure that fisheries 

within the monument shall not be peremptorily excluded, but would continue to be 

managed under the terms of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

In closing, I sincerely hope that before adopting these monuments as proposed, 

the Obama administration will meet with a few of the key stakeholders in these 

areas so they can get a true prospective on the impact this will have on our 

industry—and more importantly, the people that depend on it. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Williams. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Bamford for 5 minutes. 

12 

STATEMENT OF HOLLY BAMFORD, PH.D., ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION’S 

(NOAA) NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, SILVER SPRING, 

MARYLAND 

Dr. BAMFORD. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking 

Member Huffman, members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Holly Bamford, and I am the Assistant 

Administrator for NOAA’s National Ocean Service, currently performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and 

Management. 

Thank you for inviting NOAA to testify along with representatives from the commercial fishing industry, fishing management 

councils, and the scientific community on marine monument 

designations. 

NOAA works under a number of authorities to conserve and 

manage coastal marine resources, which support recreational, economic, cultural, and other opportunities for the American public. 

These include the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Endangered 

Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

More recently, through Presidential Proclamations, NOAA has 

been given co-management responsibility with the Department of 

the Interior for four marine national monuments in the Pacific established by the prior administration in the Antiquities Act, and 

one expansion under the current president. Each of these statutes 

are tools to protect our Nation’s trust resources. 

Today, I will focus my testimony on the process of establishing 

monuments and some conservation implications of place-based 

tools. 

Authorities to establish national monuments were provided to 

the President by Congress through the Antiquities Act of 1906. 

Sixteen presidents of both parties have used the Act’s authority 

more than 100 times to protect national treasures, such as the 

Grand Canyon, the C&O Canal, and the Statue of Liberty. 

Typically, ideas for areas to be established as monuments are 

proposed to the Administration by local and state elected officials, 

nongovernment organizations, scientists, or citizen groups. 

The authority to designate a monument lies with the President. 

NOAA’s role includes providing information on the resources and 

activities in the considered marine areas and to assist with public 

engagement. While not required under the Antiquities Act, the four 

existing marine national monuments, which NOAA co-manages, 

each had some level of public engagement prior to their establishment and/or expansion. 

For example, in 2014, when President Obama indicated that his 

Administration would consider extending protections around the 

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, the 

Departments of Commerce and the Interior held public meetings in 

the region and accepted written public comments from interested 

parties. 

Congress has created a number of different place-based authorities for NOAA to protect and manage areas of significant natural, 

cultural, and maritime heritage. Many of those tools are found 

13 

within the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the MagnusonStevens Act. 

For more than 40 years, NOAA’s Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries has worked to protect special places in America’s ocean 

and Great Lakes waters, from the site of a single Civil War shipwreck to remote coral reefs and tiny atolls. 

Marine sanctuaries have also shown to provide significant direct 

economic benefits for local and regional businesses. For example, it 

has been estimated that the National Marine Sanctuary System 

generates about $4 billion annually in local, coastal, and oceandependent economies from activities like fishing, research, recreation, and tourism. 

The success of many businesses, millions of dollars in sales, and 

thousands of jobs depend directly on thriving resources that these 

areas protect and maintain. 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, eight fisheries management 

councils make conservation decisions every day. Fisheries management plans include conservation requirements, such as fishing 

seasons, quotas, and defining essential fish habitat and enclosed 

areas. Fisheries management councils are an important management partner with NOAA, and we are very mindful of their difficult responsibilities and efforts to help manage our fisheries and 

end overfishing. 

A good example of this is the North Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council’s Precautionary Management Plan for the 

Arctic. The Plan prohibits commercial harvesting of fish until sufficient information is available to support a sustainable management 

of commercial fishing there. 

National marine monuments can provide a broad ecological and 

national heritage protection of the entire system, which is an effective manner of maintaining intact ecosystem services. For example, 

Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National Monument provides critical 

protection of about 7,000 marine species, one-quarter of which are 

found only in the Hawaiian Archipelago. The monument also possesses rich, submerged heritage resources such as shipwrecks, 

sunken naval aircraft from World War II, and other archeological 

sites that are windows into the past. 

Additionally, the monument is the first site ever designated as 

a cultural seascape and is the only natural and cultural world heritage site in the United States. 

History has shown us that over time, conservation decisions 

guided by the Sanctuaries Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, Antiquities 

Act, and other place-based authorities have shown positive social, 

economic, and cultural benefits. 

In closing, marine national monuments are one of a suite of 

place-based authorities available to the President to protect our 

most cherished ocean resources. NOAA is committed to building a 

stronger, more resilient future for American communities and 

economies. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss this today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bamford follows:] 

14 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. HOLLY BAMFORD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Holly Bamford and I am the 

Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

(NOAA) National Ocean Service performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Conservation and Management. NOAA is dedicated to the stewardship of living 

marine resources through science-based conservation and management, and the promotion of healthy ecosystems. 

As a steward, NOAA works under a number of authorities to conserve, protect, 

and manage living marine resources to ensure functioning and healthy marine ecosystems, which support a wide range of recreational, economic, cultural and other 

opportunities for the American public. These include the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, Endangered Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act. Based on these 

authorities, NOAA also has been given certain responsibilities for the stewardship 

and management of marine national monuments established by the President under 

the Antiquities Act. 

Today I will focus my testimony on the authorities, processes, management, and 

benefits of both national marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments. 

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES

National marine sanctuaries are special places in marine and Great Lakes waters 

that protect and manage nationally significant natural, historical, and cultural resources. NOAA manages 13 national marine sanctuaries created to (1) improve the 

conservation, understanding, management, and sustainable use of marine resources; 

(2) enhance public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the marine environment; and (3) maintain for future generations the habitat, and ecological services, of the natural assemblage of living resources in these areas. 

For more than 40 years, NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries has 

worked to protect special places in America’s ocean and Great Lakes waters, from 

the site of a single Civil War shipwreck to a vast expanse of ocean surrounding remote coral reefs and tiny atolls. From Washington State to the Florida Keys, and 

from Lake Huron to American Samoa, NOAA seeks to preserve scenic beauty, biodiversity, historical connections, and economic productivity of these precious underwater treasures. A healthy ocean is the basis for thriving recreation, tourism and 

commercial activities that drive coastal economies. 

The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, through NOAA, to identify, 

designate, and protect areas of the marine and Great Lakes environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities. Sanctuaries are 

designated by NOAA under the NMSA or through congressional action and are 

managed by NOAA using the authorities granted through the NMSA. Currently, 10 

sanctuaries have been designated by NOAA and 3 have been designated by 

Congress (Stellwagen Bank, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale, and Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuaries). 

The sanctuary designation process is described in the NMSA and has four 

principal steps: 

1. Scoping: NOAA announces its intent to designate a new national marine sanctuary and asks the public for input on potential boundaries, resources that 

could be protected, issues NOAA should consider, and any information they 

believe should be included in the resource analysis. 

2. Sanctuary Proposal: NOAA prepares draft designation documents including a 

draft management plan and a draft environmental impact statement under 

the National Environmental Policy Act that analyzes a range of alternatives, 

proposed regulations, and proposed boundaries. NOAA may also form an advisory council to help inform the proposal and focus stakeholder participation. 

3. Public Review: The public, agency partners, tribes, and other stakeholders 

provide input on the draft documents. NOAA considers all input and 

determines appropriate changes. 

4. Sanctuary Designation: NOAA makes a final decision and prepares final 

documents. 

15 

In 2014, NOAA established a new sanctuary nomination process where a collection of interested individuals or groups can identify and recommend special areas 

of the marine or Great Lakes environment for possible designation as a national 

marine sanctuary. NOAA evaluates the strength of a nomination based on the information provided for the national significance criteria and management considerations, as listed and described in the Sanctuary Nomination Process June 2014 final 

rule (79 FR 33851). The nomination should demonstrate broad support from a variety of stakeholders and interested parties and identify the specific goal or intent for 

designation. Once NOAA accepts the nomination of the sanctuary to the inventory, 

NOAA can begin the process to designate the sanctuary at any time. In general 

from identification of a potential sanctuary to its designation takes 2 to 4 years. 

While the primary objective of the NMSA is ecosystem- and science-based resource protection, NOAA also facilitates compatible use of all public and private 

users in sanctuaries in a manner that is adaptive over time. To accomplish this, 

NOAA prepares terms of designation for every sanctuary that describe the activities 

that NOAA may regulate, regulations that describe what actions are prohibited or 

restricted, and procedures that allow permits to be issued for certain activities. 

Sanctuary regulations are enforced by NOAA and its state and Federal partners. 

The NMSA also provides NOAA the authority to recover monetary damages for injury to sanctuary resources that are used for their restoration and recovery. 

The NMSA requires NOAA to manage national marine sanctuaries through an extensive public process, local community engagement, stakeholder involvement, and 

citizen participation. NOAA establishes local offices to manage each national marine 

sanctuary with staff who live in the community, and management plans are developed, implemented, reviewed, and revised for each sanctuary site, taking into account the specific needs and circumstances of that area. These management plans 

focus on resource protection, science, research, education, and outreach. The NMSA 

also calls for NOAA to establish community-based National Marine Sanctuary 

Advisory Councils, comprised of a diversity of interests (e.g., recreational fishers, 

divers, teachers, boaters, scientists, and elected officials) at each sanctuary to provide advice and recommendations to the superintendent of the site on issues including management, science, service, and stewardship. 

MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENTS

The authority to establish a national monument was provided to the President by 

Congress. The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431–433) was the first U.S. law 

to provide general protection for objects of historic or scientific interest on Federal 

lands. It authorizes the President to proclaim national monuments on Federal lands 

that contain ‘‘historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.’’ Sixteen presidents of both parties have used 

the Act’s authority more than 100 times to protect unique natural and historic resources and places. The Antiquities Act has been used to designate as national 

monuments such national treasures as the Grand Canyon, the C&O Canal, and the 

Statue of Liberty. 

The Antiquities Act has been used mostly to protect terrestrial resources, but has 

been used to protect special areas of the marine environment as well. President 

George W. Bush established four marine national monuments for which NOAA has 

management responsibilities in partnership with other agencies. These are 

Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National Monument (PMNM) in the Northwest 

Hawaiian Islands; Marianas Trench Marine National Monument in the Mariana 

Archipelago; Rose Atoll Marine National Monument in American Samoa; and the 

Pacific Remote Island Marine National Monument in the south-central Pacific 

Ocean, recently expanded by President Obama. 

The President establishes both terrestrial and marine national monuments by 

executing a Presidential Proclamation as authorized under the Antiquities Act. The 

process for establishing a monument is in the President’s discretion. Through the 

America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, which involved public listening sessions in 

every state, this Administration has recommended taking a transparent and open 

approach to new national monument designations tailored to engaging local, state, 

and national interests. 

Often ideas for areas to be designated are proposed to the Administration by local 

and state elected officials, nongovernmental organizations, or other citizen groups. 

The four existing marine national monuments each had a level of public engagement prior to their establishment or expansion. For example, the PMNM was established after public and stakeholder engagement helped develop a proposal for a 

national marine sanctuary. Another example: in 2014 President Obama indicated 

that his administration would consider how it might expand protections near the 

16 

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the south-central Pacific 

Ocean. Following that announcement, the Departments of Commerce and the 

Interior held a public meeting in the region, convened numerous smaller meetings 

with affected stakeholders, and accepted written public comments from all interested parties. 

The President’s Proclamation generally spells out how a marine national monument will be managed, including which agency or agencies will have management 

responsibility. To date, the four marine national monuments have been managed in 

partnership among the Department of the Interior (DOI) and NOAA, with other 

Federal and state partners that have existing authority or jurisdiction. For example, 

NOAA, DOI, and the state of Hawaii co-manage the PMNM. This monument has 

a Monument Management Board with representatives from the Federal and state 

agencies involved. 

As with marine sanctuaries, the public also has had opportunity to engage as part 

of the process to development management plans for the long-term stewardship of 

the designated monument. All marine national monument proclamations have required the development of a monument management plan. The structure and content of management plans for each marine national monument will vary because 

each monument is unique with regard to underlying protections, agencies involved, 

and physical and environmental conditions. Draft plans and associated National 

Environmental Policy Act environmental documents are provided for public input 

and developed by NOAA and DOI in coordination with other relevant Federal and 

state agencies. For example, the proclamation establishing the Marianas Trench 

Marine National Monument required the establishment of an Advisory Committee 

including representatives from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI). DOI, NOAA, and the CNMI are now drafting a management plan that will 

soon be made available for public comment. 

Management plans for these marine national monuments are intended to incorporate multiple objectives, and address activities such as fishing, takes of birds, and 

oil and gas or other development activity. Care has been taken to ensure the monuments do not compromise critical activities and exercises of the Armed Forces, and 

reflect due regard for the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea enjoyed by 

all nations under customary international law. NOAA and DOI use specific authorities to protect and manage marine monument resources and address threats to their 

protection. As a co-manager of living marine resources in the marine national monuments, NOAA has used its authority under several statutes—including the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act—to manage resources and 

objects to be protected. 

Presidents have used the Antiquities Act to protect landscapes, ocean ecosystems, 

and cultural resources. The four marine national monuments in the Pacific protect 

the abundant and diverse coral, fish, and seabird populations; facilitate exploration 

and scientific research; and promote public education regarding the value of these 

national places. By establishing these areas as marine national monuments, the 

President has ensured that these marine environments of significant scientific interest receive a high level of environmental protection for our and future generations. 

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES AND MONUMENTS

In addition to preserving places of great ecological, historical, and scientific value, 

marine sanctuaries and national monuments can provide significant direct economic 

benefits for local and regional businesses. For example, across all the national marine sanctuaries, NOAA economists estimate about $4 billion annually is generated 

in local coastal and ocean dependent economies from diverse activities like fishing, 

research and recreation-tourist activities. From restaurants and hotels, to aquariums and kayak operators, the success of many businesses, millions of dollars in 

sales and thousands of jobs, directly depend on thriving resources that these areas 

protect and maintain. 

Sanctuaries and monuments also create education and outreach opportunities 

that link communities through innovative programs and help spread awareness of 

the ocean’s connection to all of us. Further, they enable outreach to the broader 

community about the coastal environment and what they can do to be to good stewards of the marine environment. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, NOAA is committed to building a stronger, more resilient future for 

America’s communities, ecosystems and economy. A healthy ocean is the basis for 

thriving recreation, tourism and commercial activities that drive coastal economies, 

17 

and for the many ecosystem services that protect our planet. National marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments are based on different authorities, processes, and management—each has its place within the suite of authorities provided 

to protect our most cherished historical, scientific, and environmental resources. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss national marine sanctuaries and 

marine national monuments. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO DR. HOLLY BAMFORD, NOAA’S

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

Questions Submitted by the Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan 

Question 1. Can you please provide a brief description of NOAA’s plans to support 

the Marianas Trench Monument in the upcoming fiscal year? 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries’ Fiscal Year 2016 President’s Request includes approximately $3.0 million for activities in the Pacific Marine National Monuments, similar 

to Fiscal Year 2015 enacted levels. Activities planned for the Marianas Trench 

Marine National Monument (MNM) in 2016 include completion of the Monument 

Management Plan (currently in review by the CNMI government) and holding public meetings in Guam and CNMI. 

On the research side, through a NOAA-wide effort, the NOAA Ship Okeanos 

Explorer will continue its exploration of the Pacific Monuments, traveling to conduct 

mapping and ROV dives in the Mariana Archipelago for 3 months. Planning efforts 

for the trip to include discussions with local researchers and government officials 

are being initiated. Through telepresence technology, scientists around the world 

are able to actively participate in and provide input to expedition. Educators and 

the public can also view the real time video feeds from the ship and ROVs using 

a standard internet connection. Ship tours are planned during port calls in Guam. 

NOAA is considering the feasibility of additional tours in Saipan. The Okeanos 

Explorer work follows the successful ‘‘Why do we Explore the Marianas Trench’’ 

educator workshop held in CNMI and Guam last year. 

Question 2. Today’s witnesses have stressed the importance of fishery management in the role of conservation. What other considerations are critical to sound 

ocean conservation? 

Answer. Our Nation relies on healthy and resilient ocean and coastal ecosystems. 

The ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes deeply impact the lives of all Americans, 

whether living and working in the country’s heartland or along its shores. America’s 

rich and productive coastal regions and waters support tens of millions of jobs and 

contribute trillions of dollars to the national economy each year. They also host a 

growing number of important activities including recreation, science, commerce, 

transportation, energy development, and national security as well as providing a 

wealth of natural resources and ecological benefits. 

Ocean conservation efforts can account for these many ocean activities holistically 

through principles of ecosystem-based management and adaptive management. 

Ecosystem-based management integrates ecological, social, economic, commerce, 

health, and security goals, and recognizes both that humans are key components of 

ecosystems as well as the importance of healthy ecosystems to human welfare. 

Adaptive management calls for routine reassessment of management actions to 

allow for better informed and improved future decisions in a coordinated and collaborative approach. 

Questions Submitted by the Hon. Rau ́l M. Grijalva 

Question 1. During your testimony, you indicated that there are monuments and 

sanctuaries that allow fishing. Is that accurate? Please provide a list of the areas 

and percentages of each marine national monument and national marine sanctuary 

that is open to commercial fishing and to recreational fishing, along with any specific fishing restrictions in those areas. 

18 

Answer. The answer varies by monument, as the relevant Presidential 

Proclamations dictates the specific activities allowed or restricted for the purposes 

of protecting resources in the monument. The Antiquities Act requires that a designation to protect objects assures that the objects are protected. Based on that information, some types of restrictions have led to a ban on mining, drilling for oil 

or gas, and closures to commercial fishing. 

Monuments 

Area of 

Monument 

(sq mi) 

Percent Open 

to Commercial 

Fishing 

Percent Open to Recreational/Traditional Fishing 

Papaha ̄ naumokua ̄kea, HI 139,797 0% 0% 

Pacific Remote Island Areas 370,000 

sq nmi 

0% 100% 

Refuge areas 0–12 nm in the Monument are offlimits to fishing at this time, with the exception of 

Palmyra (recreational fishing) and Wake (USAF 

subsistence/recreational fishing) 

Marianas Trench—Island Unit 96,714 0% 100% 

Rose Atoll—No-take area (within 

12 nmi of Atoll) 

13,451 0% 0% (within 12 nm of Atoll) 

100% (from 12–50 nm) 

Likewise, fishing regulations vary by sanctuary, with the majority of the national 

marine sanctuaries allowing various forms of fishing. The table below specifies the 

fishing restrictions under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act regulations that 

occur within the 13 national marine sanctuaries: 

Site Name 

Area of 

Sanctuary 

(sq mi) 

Percent Open 

to Fishing* Fishing Restrictions 

Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary 

1,470 78.37% 11 marine reserves where all take and harvest is 

prohibited, and 2 marine conservation areas that 

allow limited take of lobster and pelagic fish. 

Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary 

1,286 100% None 

Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary 

3,840 94.30% Ecological Reserves, Sanctuary Preservation Areas 

and Special-use Research Only Areas where all 

fishing is prohibited. An additional 145 sq mi (Key 

Largo and Looe Key management areas) allows all 

fishing except damaging coral, spearfishing, bottom 

gear and taking tropical fish. 

Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary 

56 100% Hook-and-line is the only method of fishing allowed. 

Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary 

22 62.40% Research Only Area where all fishing is prohibited. 

Hook-and-line is the only method of fishing allowed 

in the rest of the sanctuary. 

Greater Farallones National 

Marine Sanctuary 

3,295 100% None 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback 

Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary 

1,615 100% None 

Monitor National Marine 

Sanctuary 

1 100% None 

Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary 

6,100 100% Fishing below a depth of 3,000 ft in the Davidson 

Seamount Management Zone is prohibited. 

19 

1 Commercial fishing in the sanctuary generates nearly $27.3 million in harvest revenue each 

year. This in turn creates $45.3 million in output, $30.9 in value added, $27.8 million in total 

income and 659 full- and part-time jobs. 2 Recreational fishing within the sanctuary generated roughly 250 jobs annually from 2010 to 

2012. Each year from 2010 through 2012, the CINMS local economies saw, on average, an 

additional $11.0 million in income as a result of recreational fishing in the sanctuary. 

Site Name 

Area of 

Sanctuary 

(sq mi) 

Percent Open 

to Fishing* Fishing Restrictions 

National Marine Sanctuary of 

American Samoa 

13,581 99.99% All fishing is prohibited in Fagatele Bay. In Aunu’u 

Unit Zone A, fishermen must notify the sanctuary 

prior to fishing. In Aunu’u Unit B, fishing is allowed 

except for bottom-dwelling species. In the rest of 

the sanctuary, fishing is allowed, except for use of 

poisons, explosives, spearguns, fixed nets and 

bottom trawling. 

Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary 

3,193 100% None 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary 

842 100% None 

Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary 

4,300 100% None 

* Any form of fishing is allowed. Total percent is calculated by taking the total area of the sanctuary and subtracting the no-take area. 

Question 2. During the hearing, it was insinuated that there was no fishing, 

commercial or recreational, allowed in the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary. Is that accurate? Please provide a summary of the actual fishing regulations in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Answer. Fishing is allowed within the Channel Islands national Marine 

Sanctuary (CINMS); in fact, it is has some of the richest commercial 1 and 

recreational 2 fishing on the west coast. 

Fishing in state waters (0 to 3 nautical miles) of the sanctuary is managed by 

the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, while NOAA Fisheries manages 

Federal water fisheries (3 to 200 nautical miles). The commercial and recreational 

harvesting of fish, kelp and invertebrates is permitted in nearly 80 percent of the 

sanctuary waters (0 to 6 nautical miles) around the northern Channel Islands—see 

figure below. Just over 20 percent of the sanctuary is designated as marine reserves 

or conservation areas to protect the diversity and abundance of marine life, the 

habitats they depend on, and the integrity of marine ecosystems. The state of 

California established this network of marine reserves and conservation areas in 

2003 and NOAA extended it into Federal waters in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The 

network includes 11 marine reserves where all fishing and harvest is prohibited, 

and 2 marine conservation areas that allow limited take of lobster and pelagic fish. 

20 

Source: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring 

Program 

Question 3. In your testimony, you note that the establishment and expansion of 

all of the marine national monuments designated to date included a public engagement process. Will you please describe those processes? Please provide a list of 

public engagement initiatives (including location, dates and estimated number of 

people reached) that were conducted before the designation of each marine national 

monument. 

Answer. Although no public process is required under the Antiquities Act, 

designation of each of the 2009 monuments was preceded by a series of public meetings. In American Samoa, the Governor supported the marine national monument 

designation for Rose Atoll and 2–3 public meetings were held by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ). For the Marianas Trench Marine National 

Monument, CEQ and the PEW Research Center coordinated many public meetings 

in the region (PEW reports it held over 100 meetings in open forums). No public 

meetings were specifically held on the 2009 designation of the Pacific Remote 

Islands Marine National Monument, although it was discussed in other forums. 

On August 11, 2014, NOAA held a Town Hall in Honolulu, Hawaii to discuss the 

expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. Approximately 

300 people from various fishing groups and NGOs attended and over 50 people commented at the public meeting. In addition, NOAA received over 170,000 email 

comments. Discussion of the monument proposals also occurred during meetings of 

the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council, which are open to the public. 

NOAA held a Town Hall in Providence, Rhode Island on September 15, 2015 to 

discuss possible conservation protections in New England. Over 200 people from 

various fishing groups and NGOs attended and approximately 60 people commented 

at the public meeting. To date, NOAA has received over 150,000 email comments 

and the comment period remains open. 

Question 4. We touched upon the impacts of climate change during the hearing, 

but can you expand on the importance of habitat protection to the resilience of ocean 

and coastal resources in the face of climate change? How does permanently 

protecting diverse marine ecosystems help build resilience to climate change? 

Answer. Climate change adds an additional level of stress to marine ecosystems, 

which already may be affected by local and regional impacts such as artificial shoreline modification, habitat loss, land-based pollution, and historical overfishing. 

Climate change impacts from sea level rise, ocean warming, changes in oceanic circulation, ecosystem/biome shifts, and ocean acidification will compound problems 

that already degrade ocean and coastal ecosystems. 

21 

Marine protected areas (MPAs) provide a tool to restore, preserve, and protect the 

ecological integrity and resilience of ocean and coastal ecosystems so they can withstand the additional stress of climate change. Healthy ecosystems will be more resilient to ocean warming, sea level rise, extreme weather events, and other climate 

change impacts. To help maintain the health of the marine environment, the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program endorses increasing the resilience of MPAs by 

managing other human-caused stressors that degrade ecosystems, and by protecting 

key functional groups of marine species. 

The long-term, place-based nature of MPAs helps to mitigate the impacts of 

climate change by providing a focal area for management and science to reduce local 

and regional stressors, monitor current conditions and changes over time, engage 

the public, and implement adaptive, flexible management of ecosystems and resources. Collectively, these efforts serve to enhance the effectiveness of MPAs and 

thereby enable these areas to continue supporting the communities that rely on 

them. 

MPAs that connect or are located near each other ensure diverse ocean 

ecosystems and living resources are protected. This provides broader ecological and 

economic resilience when localized climate change-related impacts occur. 

Faced with significant uncertainty about where, when and which species, habitats, and ecosystems are most vulnerable and likely to change, MPAs can be 

designed to reduce the risk of catastrophic ecological and economic loss due to the 

more extreme impacts of climate change by providing protection for as much diversity as possible, and for replication of specific species, habitats, or ecosystems. MPAs 

can be designed and managed to help reduce the ecological and socioeconomic risk 

of losing key species and habitats. 

By reducing nonclimate stressors on the environment, providing protection to 

those coastal and marine resources most at risk, and reducing risk in the face of 

uncertainty, MPAs can foster the resilience and health of marine ecosystems in 

order to improve their ability to resist and recover from the impacts of climate 

change in the ocean and directly contribute to public health, safety, and economic 

welfare of coastal communities. 

In conclusion, habitat protection through MPAs and networks of MPAs are valuable tools that, with proper management, can help buffer impacts, create climate 

change refugia, and sustain ecologically, culturally, historically, socially, and economically valuable coastal and marine resources throughout the Nation’s waters 

and beyond. 

Question 5. Section 2 of NEPA states that: ‘‘The purposes of this Act are: To 

declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony 

between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and 

welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural 

resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental 

Quality.’’ Is NEPA supposed to be used as a tool to slow down conservation work? 

Please describe how NEPA relates to monument designations. 

Answer. NEPA is not intended to slow down conservation work. NEPA is intended 

to ensure that Federal agencies act as responsible stewards of America’s vast natural resources while adequately reviewing all options. NEPA seeks to balance environmental concerns with the social, economic, and other requirements of present 

and future generations of Americans. State and local governments, concerned private and public organizations, and individuals encouraged Federal agencies to work 

in partnership; NEPA endeavors to reconcile the inherent tension between the 

rapidly changing world and its finite natural resources. 

The Presidential Proclamation that implements a monument is not subject to 

NEPA or The Administrative Procedure Act. However, the Monument Management 

Plan is analyzed under NEPA prior to being finalized. Any other Federal actions 

proposed to occur within the monument would also be assessed. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Dr. Bamford. 

I now recognize Dr. Rosenberg for 5 minutes. 

22 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, TWO BATTLE SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE, 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Dr. ROSENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

and members of the committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to discuss the 

importance of marine national monuments. 

I am Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and 

Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. However, I am 

testifying here today in my personal capacity as a marine scientist. 

For the past 30 years, I have worked in marine ecology, fishery 

science, and ocean policy in academia and government. I am a 

former Northeast Regional Administrator for the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Deputy Director of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and former Dean of Life Sciences and 

Agriculture at the University of New Hampshire. 

The idea of marine national monuments makes sense to me. 

Some features, such as seamounts, underwater canyons, and 

ledges, are unique oceanographic features supporting ecosystems of 

high biological diversity. As such, they are important public trust 

resources for the Nation as part of our natural heritage. 

In addition, these ecosystems are important for supporting marine life in surrounding areas. They contribute so-called ecosystem 

services. These are functions of the ecosystem that directly support 

human well-being from fisheries, as we have already heard, but 

also natural products, genetic resources due to the biodiversity, and 

resilience to the ongoing effects of climate change. 

The New England seamounts, ledges, and canyons are a critical 

part of the large marine ecosystem of the northeast United States. 

These are the only seamounts in U.S. Atlantic waters. Several 

outstanding U.S. ocean sciences research organizations and universities have ongoing studies of the New England seamounts, Cashes 

Ledge, and the deep canyons because of their important role in the 

ecology of the entire region. In fact, one is even named 

Oceanographer’s Canyon. 

Life forms that live in the deep sea are most often slow growing 

and slow to reproduce, with very long life spans. This means that 

they are highly vulnerable to both environmental changes and 

human exploitation. Simply put, they can be very rapidly overexploited and very slow to recover once damaged. 

There are numerous examples around the globe of newly discovered resources, or often new markets for products from known deep 

sea resources, attracting a boom of escalating fishing and a rapid 

bust due to overexploitation or a boom of other kinds of exploitive 

activities, followed by very slow or no real recovery. In other words, 

if human impacts on deep sea resources are to be managed, we 

likely only have one chance to get it right for these kinds of deep 

sea, slow-growing resources. 

Creating a marine national monument containing seamounts, 

ledges, and canyons in offshore areas is a sensible step for conservation. It would create a marine protected area, which is a welldeveloped and well-studied management tool for ocean resources, 

that restricts damaging activities within a monument area. 

23 

Area protections have been shown to be effective if they truly 

limit or minimize exploitation and are large enough to provide real 

protection for biological resources. The Northwest Hawaiian 

Islands National Monument, that we have already heard about, 

and other large enclosed areas in the Western Pacific, Indian 

Ocean, and North Atlantic are all cases in point. 

The large closed areas in New England have led to a recovery of 

some of the important fishery resources, including scallops and 

some groundfish, as well as habitat that will pay dividends in the 

future. 

Many published peer-reviewed studies, including my own, have 

shown that MPAs can be an effective management tool, particularly when coupled with other measures that control exploitation. 

One of the most important attributes of MPAs is that they provide a hedge against rapid increases in fishing pressure or the impacts of other activities, including the ongoing effects of climate 

change. Protecting an intact, significant portion of an ecosystem 

helps ensure that other impacts will not have as potentially devastating effects as they might have with no protected area in place. 

For example, there is good scientific evidence that parts of an 

ecosystem that are largely intact are far more resilient to the effects of changing climate than those that are already heavily exploited. As a matter of the ecology, the marine resources of the 

United States, the seamounts, ledges, and canyons are unique and 

they play an important role in the productivity of our oceans. 

As a matter of policy, MPAs are well-developed management 

tools that can be applied to good effect, reasonably and simply enforced. MPAs can provide real benefits to the Nation, and it is important to recognize in this instance putting a protected area in 

place before extensive exploitation is underway is far easier, more 

efficient, and less disruptive than waiting to try to conserve resources once fishing or other activities have already ramped up 

very substantially. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to share 

my views, and I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rosenberg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER

FOR SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today to discuss the importance of marine 

national monuments. I am Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science 

and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. However, I am testifying here 

today in my personal capacity as a marine scientist. For the past 30 years, I worked 

in marine ecology, fisheries, and ocean policy in academia and government. I am 

formerly the Deputy Director of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and also 

the former Dean of Life Sciences and Agriculture at the University of 

New Hampshire. 

The idea of marine national monuments makes sense to me. Some marine 

features such as seamounts and underwater canyons and ledges are unique oceanographic features supporting ecosystems of high biological diversity. As such, they 

are important public trust resources for the Nation as part of our natural heritage. 

In addition, these ecosystems are important for supporting the marine life in surrounding areas. They contribute so-called ecosystem services. These are functions of 

the ecosystem that directly support human well-being from fisheries, to natural 

products and genetic resources, to resilience to the ongoing effects of climate change. 

The New England seamounts, ledges and canyons are a critical part of the large 

marine ecosystem of the northeastern United States. This seamount chain contains 

24 

the only seamounts in U.S. Atlantic waters, highlighting their uniqueness. Several 

outstanding U.S. ocean sciences research organizations and universities have ongoing studies of the New England seamounts, Cashes Ledge, and the deep canyons 

because of their important role in the ecology of the entire region. 

Life forms that live in the deep sea are most often slow growing and slow to reproduce, while often have very long life spans. This means that they are also highly 

vulnerable to both environmental changes and human exploitation. Simply put, they 

can be very rapidly overexploited and very slow to recover once damaged. There are 

numerous examples around the globe of newly discovered resources, or more often 

new markets for products from deep sea resources, attracting a boom of escalating 

fishing and a rapid bust due to overexploitation, followed by very slow or no real 

recovery. In other words, if human impacts on deep sea resources are to be managed, we may only have one chance to get it right. 

Creating a marine national monument containing seamounts, ledges and canyons 

in offshore areas is a sensible step for conservation of these areas. It would create 

a Marine Protected Area, or MPA, which is a well-developed and studied management tool for ocean resources that restrict damaging activities within the monument 

area. Area protections have been shown to be effective if they truly limit or minimize exploitation and are large enough to provide real protection for biological resources. The Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument created by President 

Bush is a case in point. Other large closed areas in the western Pacific, Indian 

Ocean and North Atlantic are also in place. The large closed areas in New England 

have led to the recovery, of some important fisheries including scallops and some 

groundfish. Many published, peer reviewed studies, including my own, have shown 

that MPAs can be an effective management tool, particularly when coupled with 

other measures that control exploitation. 

One of the most important attributes of MPAs is that they provide a ‘‘hedge’’ 

against rapid increases in fishing pressure or the impacts of other activities including the ongoing effects of a changing climate. Protecting an intact, significant portion of an ecosystem helps ensure that other impacts won’t have as potentially 

devastating effects as they might have if no protected area existed. For example, 

there is good scientific evidence that parts of an ecosystem that are largely intact, 

are far more resilient to the effects of a changing climate than those that are already heavily exploited. 

As a matter of the ecology of the marine resources of the United States, these sea 

mounts, ledges and canyons are unique and play an important role in the productivity of our oceans. As a matter of policy, MPAs are well developed management 

tools that can be applied to good effect, reasonably and simply enforced. MPAs can 

provide real benefits to the Nation. It is important to recognize in this instance, putting a protected area in place before extensive exploitation is underway is far easier, 

more efficient and less disruptive than waiting to try to conserve resources once 

fishing or other actions are already ramping up. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to share my views and I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO DR. ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, UNION OF

CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

Dr. Rosenberg did not submit responses to the Committee by the 

appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record. 

Questions Submitted by the Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan 

Question 1. Since the Antiquities Act was passed, Democratic presidents have 

dedicated 98 national monuments and Republican presidents have designated 82. 

That’s a fairly even split. 

a. Does the designation of national monuments seem to you like it should be a 

partisan issue? 

b. I know that the ecology of the marine environment is very complicated, but is 

there general consensus in the scientific community as to the utility of having 

Marine Protected Areas, both for conservation and for increasing the sustainable 

production of resources? 

25 

Questions Submitted by the Hon. Rau ́l M. Grijalva 

Question 1. I know that the ecology of the marine environment is very 

complicated, but is there general consensus in the scientific community as to the 

utility of having Marine Protected Areas, both for conservation and for increasing 

the sustainable production of resources? 

Question 2. Are marine national monuments, and MPAs in general, important to 

protecting the biodiversity both of the region and of the oceans as a whole? 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Dr. Rosenberg. 

I now recognize Mr. Moore for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST 

COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, 

OREGON 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 

members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today. 

For the record, my name is Rod Moore. I am the Executive 

Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association. Our 

Association represents commercial fishermen and shore-based, 

American-owned seafood processors and associated seafood businesses located in Washington, Oregon, and California. Our members also have operations located in Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, 

Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, and Utah. 

Our main objective is to assure the regular supply of sustainable 

seafood so we can provide healthy products to the consumer. 

Let me make one thing clear from the beginning: a well designed 

marine sanctuary is not a bad thing. Just as on land, there are special places in the ocean that deserve protection. Nobody wants to 

see trawlers trawling up pieces of the ‘‘USS Monitor’’ or a deep sea 

sport fisherman pulling up coral from Flower Garden Banks. 

However, there is a big difference between a marine sanctuary 

and a national marine monument. There is a process and there are 

criteria for establishing a sanctuary. To begin with, the process is 

locally driven. Under quote to the NOAA Web page, every nomination starts at the community level. 

While NOAA’s concept of a community might not be the same as 

ours, there at least has to be a local nexus. 

NOAA then reviews the nomination against several criteria, including existing management regulations and against community 

support. Only if the proposed area passes muster, or at least the 

red face test, will it be placed on NOAA’s list of nominated areas 

for consideration to be designated as a national marine sanctuary, 

which is an entirely separate process. 

Unfortunately, this process is not good enough for some people. 

We have seen public calls for the President to use his powers under 

the Antiquities Act to establish marine monuments off 

New England and Alaska. In the latter case, a nomination for a 

sanctuary was denied by NOAA. Undaunted, the Public Employees 

for Environmental Responsibility set up an online petition for 

which, as of last week, they had nearly 114,000 supporters. 

Of course, that includes signatories from 28 foreign countries. In 

fact, there were more foreign signatories than there were from the 

26 

state of Alaska, including a lone signature from the Lao Democratic 

People’s Republic. 

In the former case, proponents did not even bother with the sanctuary nomination. They went directly to the monument petition 

route. They did this in spite of the fact that the New England 

Fishery Management Council was working on a fisheries habitat 

plan that would protect some of the same places that were covered 

in the petition. 

So why this rush to action when a perfectly good, workable, and 

science-based sanctuary nomination process is readily available? 

The obvious answer to our industry is that proponents wish to shut 

down most commercial fishing and control whatever commercial 

and sport fishing that is left. 

And this gets to the heart of the matter. Under the Antiquities 

Act, the President can withdraw whatever Federal lands he wants 

and have that withdrawal managed using any criteria he chooses. 

You don’t like trawling? Poof, it is gone. 

The Antiquities Act provides no basis for learned discourse, no 

scientific, economic, or social analysis; it is whatever the President 

says it is. 

The use of the Antiquities Act to create marine national monuments is a true top-down, dictatorial approach, which is frequently 

championed by big bucks environmental groups and which the public, including the fishing community that is directly affected, has no 

voice. 

So what are the alternatives? The first, obviously, is by 

submitting a nomination through the sanctuary process. 

The second alternative, the one which I prefer, is to establish 

sensitive areas under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And how well 

does this work? Well, in the West Coast it works pretty well. In 

2005, the Pacific Fishery Management Council completed its review 

of EFH and HAPC areas; and in 2014, began its formal review of 

those areas. 

During this process, leaders in the fishing industry and the environmental community decided they had more to gain by working 

together than fighting with each other, so they established the 

Collaborative EFH Working Group. The Collaborative is working 

on a comprehensive plan of habitat protection and access to fisheries which, if adopted, will increase the permanent closed areas 

significantly, while recognizing that there are areas that are now 

closed but should be opened. 

Although one environmental group has bowed out of the process, 

and some fishermen are reluctant to trust those that remain, the 

majority of us have hope for the future. 

I learned last night a similar situation has occurred in the MidAtlantic Council which has won praise in the environmental 

community. 

Finally, a word about legislation pending before this committee 

and the House. The House has already passed H.R. 1335, which 

among other things makes clear that the FCMA is the controlling 

legal statute in fisheries management. This will resolve such strangled legal interpretations like the one provided to the Pacific 

Management Council by NOAA’s legal counsel: that the Council 

27 

1Tom Roff in http://alliancefisheries.org/uploads/BaitandSwitch0215.pdf. 

2http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/. 

has jurisdiction over fishing and the ocean bottom, but does not 

have jurisdiction over the water column. 

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind there are certain 

key areas in the ocean that need protection. The question is how 

best to do it. I think you would find that most rational people agree 

that protecting an area should be conducted only after scientific 

analysis and a true public process. The use of the Antiquities Act 

should not be allowed. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST COAST SEAFOOD

PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the potential implications of 

pending marine national monument designations and the role of the National 

Marine Sanctuary System. For the record, my name is Rod Moore and I serve as 

Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA). Our 

Association represents commercial fishermen and shore-based, American-owned 

seafood processors and associated seafood businesses in Washington, Oregon, and 

California. Our members also have operations located in Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, 

Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, and Utah. Our main objective is to assure the regular supply of sustainable seafood so that we can provide healthy products to the consumer. 

Let me make one thing clear from the beginning: a well-designed marine sanctuary is not a bad thing. Just like on land, there are special places in the ocean 

with historic, cultural, or natural values that should be protected. Nobody wants to 

see trawlers operating on the site of the wreck of the U.S.S. MONITOR; nobody 

wants to see deep sea sport fishermen hauling up chunks of coral in the Flower 

Garden Banks. However, there is a big difference between a national marine 

sanctuary and a marine national monument. 

The National Marine Sanctuary System was established in 1972 and presently encompasses 12 properly created marine sanctuaries and 2 marine monuments, one 

of which is identified and managed as a sanctuary. Reading through the history of 

the Sanctuary System (http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/history/welcome.html), one 

can see that the initial sanctuaries were chosen to celebrate and protect key historic 

and environmental values. As time went on, other agendas came into play. For example, let’s look at the four sanctuaries—Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, 

Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands—established off the coast of California. Visiting 

the Web sites for each of them, you discover that all four speak grandly—and vaguely—about protecting biological diversity, the importance of upwelling to biological 

productivity, and ecosystem values. In fact, they were originally designated as a way 

to prevent offshore oil and gas exploration. To quote a local fisherman on the history 

of the designation of the Monterey Bay NMS: ‘‘The main public interest in creating 

a sanctuary was to add another layer of regulation to keep oil development out of 

the region.’’ 1

But still, there is a process and there are criteria for establishing a sanctuary. 

To begin with, the process is locally driven (‘‘every nomination starts at the community level’’ 2). While NOAA’s concept of a ‘‘community’’ may not be the same as ours, 

at least there has to be a local nexus. NOAA then reviews the nomination against 

several criteria—including existing management and regulations—and against community support/opposition. Only if the proposed area passes muster—or at least the 

red face test—will it be placed on NOAA’s list of nominated areas for consideration 

to be designated as a national marine sanctuary, which is an entirely separate process. As of the beginning of September, five formal nominations have been submitted; 

three have been denied; one has been re-submitted; and two have been accepted. 

That is a reasonable track record. 

Unfortunately, that isn’t good enough for some people. Recently, we have seen 

public calls for the President to use his powers under the Antiquities Act to establish marine monuments off New England and Alaska. In the latter case, a nomination for a sanctuary was denied by NOAA, citing three of the nominating criteria 

28 

3http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/nominations/aleutian_letter_012315.pdf. 

that it didn’t meet.3 Undaunted, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility set up an on-line petition for which—as of last week—they had nearly 114,000 

supporters. Of course, that included signatories from 28 foreign countries; in fact 

there were more foreign signatories than there were from the state of Alaska 

(including a lone signature from the Lao Democratic People’s Republic). In the 

former case, proponents didn’t even bother with a sanctuary nomination; they went 

directly to the monument petition route. They did this in spite of the fact that the 

New England Fishery Management Council was working on a fisheries habitat plan 

that would protect some of the same places that are covered in the petition. 

So why this rush to action when a perfectly good, workable and (mostly) sciencebased sanctuary nomination process is readily available? The obvious answer to our 

industry is that the proponents wish to shut down most commercial fishing and 

control whatever commercial and sport fishing will be left. 

And this gets to the heart of the matter. Under the Antiquities Act, the President 

can withdraw whatever Federal lands he wants and have that withdrawal managed 

using any criteria he chooses. Don’t like trawling? Poof, it’s gone. The Antiquities 

Act provides no basis for learned discourse, no scientific, economic, or social analysis; it is whatever the President says it is. The use of the Antiquities Act to create 

marine national monuments is a true top-down, dictatorial approach which is frequently championed by big-bucks environmental groups and in which the public— 

including the fishing community that is directly affected—has no voice. 

As to the value of the fisheries, it’s difficult to say. Not having seen the direct 

proposals, nor being familiar with the particular fisheries in either case, I would 

hesitate to put a value on the loss to the Nation’s—and the region’s—economy if 

either of these areas was established by presidential fiat. But once again, that gets 

to my point: there is no analysis done, no deliberations, no meaningful public comments—the President simply signs his name to a piece of paper and 554,000 square 

nautical miles encompassing the Aleutian Islands, a large chunk of the Bering Sea, 

and southwest Alaska as far north as the Kuskokwim delta is off limits to whatever 

the President or his staff decides. 

So what are the alternatives if we want to protect habitat in a studied, sensible 

way? The first obviously is by submitting a nomination through the National Marine 

Sanctuary Process. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act provides a number of 

checks and balances to give the common man a fighting chance to shape the extent 

of sanctuary protection. I would submit it doesn’t always work; for example, the 

Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank Sanctuaries off the coast of California were 

recently expanded by 2.5 times each through a simple regulatory process. However, 

to be fair the sanctuaries listened to the comments of the regulated communities— 

sport and commercial fishermen, ports, aircraft owners, etc.—in crafting with their 

final regulations. 

The second alternative, and the one I prefer, is to establish sensitive areas 

through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSFCMA) process. The MSFCMA provides for the identification of essential fish 

habitat (EFH) and the creation of habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC). More 

importantly, the MSFCMA provides for a public process to evaluate and decide on 

what areas are going to be protected. 

How well does this work? Using the West Coast as an example, I think you will 

find that it works extremely well. In 2005, the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC) completed work on its initial round of EFH and HAPC areas. These areas 

ranged from spots where there was no fishing allowed to spots where only nonbottom tending gear was allowed. These EFH/HAPC areas were in addition to the 

five national marine sanctuaries located off the West Coast, the Rockfish 

Conservation Area (RCA) which stretches from Mexico to Canada and is designed 

to allow depth-based protection for certain overfished species, and restrictions on the 

use of gear (e.g., no large footrope trawl gear shallower than the RCA). Combine 

these restrictions with the plethora of state-regulated nonfishing areas and you will 

find that the area left to fish in is quite limited. 

In 2014, the Council began its formal review of EFH pursuant to section 

303(b)(2)(C) of the MSFCMA. During this process, leaders from the fishing industry 

and the environmental community decided they had more to gain by working together than fighting with each other so they established the Collaborative EFH 

Working Group. The Collaborative is working on a comprehensive plan of habitat 

protection and access to fisheries which if adopted will increase the permanent 

closed areas significantly while recognizing that there are areas which are now 

closed but could be opened. Although one environmental group has bowed out of the 

29 

process and some fishermen are reluctant to trust those that remain, the majority 

of us have hope for the future. 

Finally, a word about legislation pending before this committee. The committee— 

and the House—have already passed H.R. 1335 which among other things makes 

clear that the MSFCMA is the controlling statute in fisheries management. This 

will resolve such strangled legal interpretations like the one provided to the PFMC 

by NOAA’s legal counsel: that the Council has jurisdiction over fishing and the 

ocean bottom but doesn’t have jurisdiction over the water column. By using the 

MSFCMA process to develop regulations instead of the NMSA and the Antiquities 

Act, we will ensure that at least when it comes to fishing there will be thoughtful 

and thorough analysis and the opportunity for public comment. 

The committee also has pending before it H.R. 330 and H.R. 332, both introduced 

by Mr. Young of Alaska. H.R. 330 is more general in that it prohibits the establishment of a marine national monument anywhere in the exclusive economic zone before certain steps are taken, including getting approval from the governors of 

affected states. H.R. 332 is more specific in prohibiting the establishment of a 

marine national monument in the EEZ off Alaska. Both are good bills but we would 

prefer the passage of H.R. 330 because of its more general applicability. 

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that there are certain key areas in 

the ocean that need protection. The question is how best to do it. I think you would 

find that most rational people agree that protecting an area should be conducted 

only after scientific analysis and a true public process. The use of the Antiquities 

Act should not be allowed. I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you, Mr. Moore. 

Finally, Mr. Oliver, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS OLIVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, 

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 

Mr. OLIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to comment today. 

The North Pacific Council, one of eight regional fishery management councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, manages 

the fisheries off of Alaska. A few statistics I would recite that many 

of you have heard before: the fisheries off Alaska provide over half 

the Nation’s annual seafood production, are the largest employer in 

the state of Alaska, are second only to oil in revenues, and have 

sustained between 3 and 5 billion pounds annually for over 30 

years. 

A statistic you may not have heard: these fisheries occur within 

the 1.3 million square mile area managed by the Council of which 

about two-thirds, or 66 percent, is currently closed to all or some 

fishing activities. Many of these areas qualify as marine protected 

areas. 

Our ecosystem-based management approach is not focused on 

fisheries extraction alone, but includes explicit consideration of 

numerous related components of the ecosystem, including, importantly, the use of geographic/area closures to fishing activities. 

Closure areas in the North Pacific have been implemented for a 

variety of reasons, including essential fish habitat designation and 

a number of other reasons. 

I have attached maps to my written testimony which provide a 

visual representation of the scope and magnitude of some of these 

closed areas. I have listed a few of the most significant, including 

the U.S. Arctic EEZ, where nearly 150,000 square miles is closed 

to all commercial fishing as a precautionary measure. 

30 

Bottom trawl closures, developed to protect essential fish habitat, 

cover over 400,000 square nautical miles in the Northern Bering 

Sea and throughout the Aleutian Islands management area to protect pristine habitat and to ‘freeze the footprint’ of existing bottom 

trawling. 

What all of these closed areas have in common is that they were 

all implemented based on careful consideration of scientific information, detailed analysis of biological, economic, and social impacts, and with extensive input from all affected or interested 

stakeholders, as well as the state of Alaska. 

The Council process, operating through the authorities of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and subject to approval by the Secretary of 

Commerce, has demonstrated that it is by far the best equipped to 

manage fishing activities within the U.S. EEZ, including identification and designation of areas appropriate for protection. 

This process includes outreach to, and input from, fishing 

industry participants, local coastal residents, and environmental 

organizations. 

I would like to specifically highlight the Aleutian Island habitat 

conservation area closures, which were established as part of the 

Council’s essential fish habitat process mandated under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. This map illustrates the careful balancing 

achieved by this process and the necessary complexity resulting 

from consideration of numerous management objectives. This particular map shows the open and closed areas for only a single 

target species, Pacific cod. 

The result is that only about 6 percent, the areas that you can 

see in beige, only about 6 percent of the entire area remains open 

to bottom trawling. However, it is that 6 percent which was identified through the Council process as the most critical to the continued viability of economically and socially valuable commercial 

fishing activities in this area. 

Unilateral closure of this area would be unnecessarily devastating to the fishing industry, to numerous remote, coastal communities who are heavily dependent upon fishing activities in this 

region, and to the United States as a whole. 

This balancing act is not only possible through the Council process, it is precisely what the Council process was set up to do. Other 

councils around the region have implemented similar closures. I 

have listed some of those: off of New England; off of the MidAtlantic, where it was noted they recently closed an area more 

than 38,000 square miles, nearly the size of Virginia; and off the 

Pacific Coast by the Pacific Council, where they have already designated over 130,000 miles of EFH conservation area. 

A flip side story exists in the Western Pacific, Mr. Chairman. A 

stark contrast to these examples of deliberative, science-based closure designations can be found in the Western Pacific Region, 

where U.S. fishermen governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

managed by the Western Pacific Council have lost about 30 percent, or 665,000 square miles, of fishing waters to monument and 

sanctuary designations, with little or no evidence of benefits. 

In summary, area closures to fishing or other activities are, indeed, an important natural resource management tool, and they 

have been applied extensively in the North Pacific and in other 

31 

regions of the United States. Successful use of this resource 

management tool requires a careful balancing of multiple considerations, which is not possible under unilateral actions, such as 

monument designations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. CHRIS OLIVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH PACIFIC

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

INTRODUCTION

The North Pacific Council, one of eight regional fishery management councils 

established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), manages fisheries in the U.S. EEZ off Alaska. Widely recognized as one of the most successfully managed fisheries in the world, the fisheries 

off Alaska provide over half of the Nation’s annual seafood production, are the largest employer in the state of Alaska, are second only to oil in revenues, and have 

been sustained between 3 and 5 billion pounds annually for over 30 years. These 

fisheries occur within the 1.3 million square nautical mile area managed by the 

North Pacific Council, of which approximately two-thirds, or 66 percent, is closed 

to all or some fishing activities, many of which qualify as marine protected areas. 

Our ecosystem-based management approach is not focused on fisheries extraction 

alone, but includes explicit consideration of numerous related components of the marine ecosystem, including: seabird, Steller sea lion, and other marine mammals and 

protected species; predator-prey relationships and a ban on fishing for forage fish 

species; conservative exploitation rates for target species; aggressive bycatch reduction measures for species like halibut, salmon, and crab; comprehensive observer 

and catch accounting system; and, importantly, the use of geographic/area closures 

to fishing activities throughout the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, 

and into the Arctic. Management decisions, including designation of closed areas, 

are informed by detailed staff analyses, review by our Scientific and Statistical 

Committee, recommendations from our industry Advisory Panel, and input from a 

wide variety of stakeholders. 

DEVELOPMENT OF CLOSURE AREAS IN THE NORTH PACIFIC

Closure areas in the North Pacific have been implemented for a variety of reasons, including: essential fish habitat designation, or further designation as habitat 

areas of particular concern (particularly deep sea coral concentrations); specific protections for crab, halibut or rockfish nursery areas; minimizing bycatch of prohibited 

species; Steller sea lion protection (critical habitat or foraging areas); or simply as 

a precautionary measure in the face of limited information (such as the Arctic 

FMP). The attached maps provide a visual representation of the scope and magnitude of some of these closed areas. The attached table provides more descriptive 

details on major closed areas. A few of the most important examples include: 

• The U.S. Arctic EEZ—nearly 150,000 square nautical miles closed to all 

commercial fishing as a precautionary measure, pending better scientific 

information on resources within that area. 

• Steller sea lion protection zones—over 73,000 square nautical miles, throughout the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea, closed to fishing for 

major sea lion prey species (pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka Mackerel) and/or 

to protect haulouts and rookeries. 

• Coral gardens and seamounts in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands— 

over 10,000 square nautical miles closed to all bottom contact fishing gear, 

to protect deep sea coral concentrations. 

• Bottom trawl closures developed to protect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)— 

over 400,000 square nautical miles in the Northern Bering Sea and throughout the Aleutian Islands management area closed to bottom trawling, to protect pristine habitat and to ‘freeze the footprint’ of existing bottom trawling. 

• Crab protection zones—over 31,000 square nautical miles, in the Gulf of 

Alaska, Bristol Bay, and Pribilof Islands, closed to trawling to protect vulnerable crab habitat. 

• Southeast Alaska trawl closures—nearly 60,000 square nautical miles closed 

to bottom trawling to protect crab and rockfish habitat. 

32 

What these closed areas have in common is that they were all implemented based 

on careful consideration of available scientific information, detailed analysis of biological, economic, and social impacts, and with extensive input from all affected or 

interested stakeholders, as well as the state of Alaska. The Council process, operating through the authorities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and subject to approval by the Secretary of Commerce, has demonstrated over and over that it is by 

far the best equipped to manage fishing activities within the U.S. EEZ, including 

identification and designation of areas appropriate for protection. The North Pacific 

region in particular benefits from some of the most extensive and robust scientific 

information available to inform its decisionmaking. Extensive analyses of the biological impacts to the marine resources, as well as the social and economic impacts 

to affected stakeholders, are conducted prior to any designations. This process 

includes outreach to, and input from, fishing industry participants, local, coastal 

residents, and environmental organizations. This ensures that when an area is identified for closure to fishing activities, we have confidence that the intended beneficial consequences to the ecosystem will indeed occur, and confidence that we have 

minimized unintended, and potentially adverse, consequences to the extent possible. 

ALEUTIAN ISLANDS HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS

I would like to specifically highlight the Aleutian Island habitat conservation area 

closures, which were established as part of the Council’s EFH process mandated by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. The Council process to identify and designate these areas (including NMFS and the state of Alaska) resulted in several 

hundred pages of detailed analysis of available scientific information, including information on coral concentrations and other benthic habitat features, as well as 

analysis of fishing patterns in the area. After a lengthy process of scientific analysis 

and stakeholder review, including input from local, coastal residents, fishing industry representatives, and environmental organizations, the Council ultimately 

developed a plan to protect known coral concentrations from fishing activities, and 

essentially ‘freeze the footprint’ of bottom trawling activity throughout the entire 

area. The result is that only about 6 percent of the entire area remains open to bottom trawling; however, it is that 6 percent which was identified through the Council 

process which is most critical to the continued viability of economically and socially 

valuable commercial fishing activities in this management area. Attachment 4 

illustrates the careful balancing achieved by this process, and the necessary complexity resulting from consideration of numerous management objectives—this map 

shows the closed and open areas for only a single target species, Pacific cod. 

Unilateral closure of such an area would be unnecessarily devastating to the fishing 

industry, to numerous remote, coastal communities who are heavily dependent upon 

fishing activities in this region, and to the United States as a whole. 

I would also note that we have developed an Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem 

Plan (FEP), which serves as an overarching guide to our long-standing Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP). The FEP provides an explicit ecosystem context for management considerations, and includes a series of ecosystem indicators which can be 

periodically assessed to help inform whether further protections are warranted, and 

specifically guide decisionmakers as to specifically where and how such protections 

make the most sense. Our Council is now in the process of developing a similar 

overarching FEP for the Bering Sea management area. These processes will dovetail 

in 2016 as the Council will also be conducting a 5-year review of our Essential Fish 

Habitat provisions, which could inform consideration of additional, or alternative, 

closure areas. 

BERING SEA CANYONS

An additional area of intense focus for our Council over the past few years has 

involved consideration of protection measures for canyon areas adjacent to the vast 

Bering Sea slope area, specifically Pribilof and Zemchug Canyons, the so-called 

‘grand canyons of the Bering Sea’. These canyons are small parts of the much larger 

Bering Sea slope, which is an area of extremely high productivity and importance 

to commercial fisheries. While relatively little fishing effort occurs in the two canyon 

areas (and most trawl effort occurs at depths far shallower than where most deep 

sea corals occur), the Council has been petitioned to prohibit fishing in these canyons, or in areas within the canyons, to protect areas of coral concentration or other 

benthic habitat. Beginning in 2012, based on initial video transect surveys (Miller 

et al 2012) and numerous proposals from ENGO organizations, the Council began 

to specifically examine the necessity of special protection for these canyon areas, as 

important habitat for deep-sea corals, sponges, and certain life history stages of fish 

and crab species. Based on examination of trawl survey and other available information, NMFS scientists concluded that while Pribilof canyon in particular does 

33 

contain areas of coral concentration, neither area contains unique physical characteristics which distinguish them from other areas of the Bering Sea slope. 

Additional, underwater camera transect surveys were conducted in 2014, and the 

report of that research will be reviewed by our Council at our upcoming October 

meeting. Among the results of the recent camera drops are that about 97 percent 

of the images captured were classified as ‘‘containing only unconsolidated substrate 

(mud, sand, gravel, pebble, or mixed course material).’’ However, this work also did 

verify areas of the Pribilof canyon with deep-sea coral concentrations. While relatively little commercial fishing occurs in these canyon areas currently (less than 

3 percent of total Bering Sea catch), and most trawling occurs at depths much 

shallower than most deep-sea coral concentrations, it can be an important area for 

certain species at certain time. The important point is that careful consideration of 

the available scientific information, and the involvement of the numerous stakeholders, is necessary in order to make informed, responsible decisions regarding proposed closures of large areas of the ocean. Similar to the development of the 

Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area, it is likely that, in the case of the 

Bering Sea canyons, a more surgical resolution could result in appropriate protections, without unnecessarily closing large areas of the ocean which are, or may be 

in the future, important to fisheries, but which would provide little marginal habitat 

protection. This is not only possible through the Council process, it is precisely what 

the Council process was designed to accomplish. 

EXAMPLES FROM OTHER REGIONS

Other regional councils around the country have implemented similar closures for 

habitat protection, through very similar processes. 

New England: New England Council Chairman, Terry Stockwell, outlined in a recent statement numerous habitat protections developed by their Council over the 

years, some of which apply to areas which are currently being considered for 

National monument designation—for example, through the New England Council 

process fishing activities have been restricted in the Cashes Ledge and adjacent 

areas, an area of 520 square nautical miles, for over 15 years. The NEFMC just 

completed a multi-year review of its closure system. This included the innovative 

development of the Swept Area Seabed Impact model to evaluate the impacts of 

fishing on habitat. Some measures to protect deep-sea corals were first adopted in 

2007. In 2013, the three East Coast fishery management councils signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate protection of deep sea corals. The 

NEFMC is now moving forward with plans to adopt additional protections in many 

offshore canyons. 

Mid-Atlantic: The Mid-Atlantic Council earlier this year took action to designate 

‘deep sea coral zones’ which will prohibit the use of any bottom-tending gear over 

an area of more than 38,000 square nautical miles—an area nearly the size of 

Virginia. Reflective of the science-base, participatory process used in the North 

Pacific and other council regions, and the need to appropriately balance habitat protections with fishing opportunities, Council Chairman Rick Robbins was quoted— 

‘‘This historic action by the Council was made possible by the cooperation of a broad 

group of fishermen, advisors, coral researchers, conservation groups, Council members, and staff. . . . Many people deserve credit for their collaborative efforts to refine 

the coral protection areas in a way that protects deep sea corals in our region while 

accommodating current fishing practices.’’ 

The Mid-Atlantic Council took this action under the discretionary provisions of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act which allow regional fishery management councils to 

designate zones where, and periods when, fishing may be restricted in order to protect deep sea corals. The success of this action hinged on a cooperative effort to define the proposed coral protection areas in order to protect deep sea corals in the 

region while accommodating current fishing practices and minimizing the potential 

negative economic impacts. Over the course of the amendment’s development, the 

Council engaged with of a broad group of fishermen, advisors, coral researchers, and 

conservation groups. 

A particularly successful element of this collaborative process was a workshop 

that the Council held in April 2015, in order to refine proposed boundaries for 15 

‘‘discrete coral zones,’’ which are areas of known or highly likely coral presence. This 

workshop included participants from the Council’s advisory panels, deep sea coral 

experts, industry members, and other stakeholders. During the interactive workshop, boundaries were refined and negotiated in real time, allowing the participants 

the opportunity to provide feedback on key areas of importance for both coral conservation and for fishing communities. This participation was critical to reconciling 

multiple boundary proposals, for which small-scale spatial modifications may have 

34 

led to large differences in impacts, and where fine-scale fishery and coral data were 

often lacking. Workshop participants were able to reach consensus on alternative 

boundaries for all 15 proposed discrete areas, all of which were ultimately recommended by the Council for implementation. 

Pacific: The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) has a long and 

collaborative history of protecting habitat and unique natural areas. The West Coast 

currently has extensive conservation areas in place. In 2005, the Pacific Council set 

aside over 130,000 square miles of essential fish habitat conservation areas for species in its Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Additionally, there 

are five national marine sanctuaries on the West Coast, the California Coastal 

National Monument, and numerous state water marine protected areas in 

California, Oregon, and Washington. A new national monument designation for marine areas would presumably be for the purpose of protecting objects of historic or 

scientific interest and the West Coast has both existing protected areas and an open 

Pacific Council process to address current and potential future needs. 

The Pacific Council is currently considering further geographic protections and 

conservation areas. The Pacific Council has been engaged for the last 5 years in an 

extensive review of groundfish essential fish habitat. This collaborative and transparent process between stakeholders, environmental organizations, and government 

agencies has resulted in proposals to add an additional 120,000 square miles of essential fish habitat conservation area designations. The Pacific Council also works 

closely with West Coast treaty tribes to ensure that protective measures are consistent with treaty trust responsibilities in the tribal usual and accustomed fishing 

areas. The establishment of a national monument would, in many ways, be duplicative of ongoing efforts, but would lack the Pacific Council’s valuable public process. 

Fisheries are import to our Nation in many ways; socially, culturally, and economically. The management of our natural resources through the National 

Monument Process can be seen as a blunt tool that causes controversy, resistance, 

and conflict. The Pacific Council believes that the management of our Nation’s fisheries, fish stocks, and the habitats they rely on should continue to occur under the 

authorities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its collaborative processes through the 

regional fishery management councils. Our Nation’s marine resources and fisheries 

are national treasures, treasures that are adequately protected under existing 

conventions. 

Western Pacific—a flip-side story: A stark contrast to these examples of deliberative, science-based closure designations can be found in the Western Pacific Region, 

where U.S. fishermen governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and managed by the 

Western Pacific Council have lost 30 percent (665,000 square miles) of fishing 

waters to monument and sanctuary designations, which equates to more than 100 

times the proposed Atlantic marine national monument in the Gulf of Maine and 

off Cape Cod, which together would total about 6,000 square miles. Created under 

executive proclamation without the science and collaboration described above, marine monument designations can subvert the socioeconomic and cultural importance 

of fishing to coastal communities (Hawaii is the 47th smallest state in the Union, 

with 6,459 square miles of land), which depend on the ocean for food, natural resources, cultural identity and social cohesiveness. Combined with prohibited areas 

established under the Council process (which are based on a scientifically informed, 

public process), currently 44 percent of the U.S. EEZ waters in the Pacific Islands 

are closed to U.S. longline and purse-seine vessels. Purported reasons for the creation of the monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), e.g., protection of endangered monk seals from fishing and protecting fish stock recruitment 

areas for the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), have proved unfounded. Somewhat 

ironically, monk seals increasingly migrate from the NWHI to the heavily populated 

MHI where they fare better (and which is exactly where displaced fishing effort occurs), and scientific research indicates that ‘‘connectivity between the MHI and 

NWHI is limited; thus, the MHI will not receive substantial subsidy from the 

Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National Monument.’’ (Toonen et al. 2011). 

SUMMARY

In summary, area closures to fishing or other activities are indeed an important 

natural resource management tool and have been applied extensively in the North 

Pacific region, and in other regions of the United States. The Council process, 

guided by the provisions of the Magnuson-Steven Act and other applicable laws and 

subject to approval by the Secretary of Commerce, is uniquely positioned to most 

effectively implement this management tool, using the best available science and 

with the collaboration and input of affected stakeholders, and the affected, adjacent 

state(s). This process has resulted in the implementation of significant protection 

35 

areas throughout the North Pacific and the rest of the United States, and has done 

so in a way to minimize potentially adverse impacts to other components of the ecosystem, including region-wide habitat, bycatch encounters, coastal economies, and 

fishermen. Unilateral closure designations represent a tremendous destabilizing 

force which place significant investments at risk—ongoing investments in vessel replacement, processing facilities, and coastal community infrastructure, along with 

the thousands of jobs attendant to these activities, can be wiped out with a single, 

unanticipated, relatively uniformed action. 

Successful use of this resource management tool requires a careful balancing of 

multiple considerations which is not possible under unilateral actions such as monument designations. In late 2014 the North Pacific Council, at the request of Senator 

Lisa Murkowski, submitted a comment letter on draft legislation titled ‘‘Improved 

National Monument Designation Process’’ (similar to legislation, H.R. 330, just introduced by Congressmen Jones and Young). Quoting from this letter, Council 

Chairman Dan Hull stated, ‘‘Your legislation would indeed improve upon the existing process, and would require deliberative consideration of consequences, rather 

than unilateral Executive Action. . . . Further, we note that the Regional Fishery 

Management Council process provides an open and transparent forum to consider potential impacts of monument designation relative to fishing and related activities 

within any proposed monument site . . . and that, if an area is designated, any fishing regulations within that area should be accomplished through the authorities of 

the relevant Regional Fishery Management Council, and the processes of the 

Magnuson-Steven Act.’’ 

ATTACHMENT 1 

Year-Round Area Closures Established by NPFMC off Alaska 

Summary Table 

* Estimate; not precisely calculated from GIS mapping. 

36 

ATTACHMENT 2 

Year-round area closures established by the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council. Note that closures to protect Steller sea lion prey are not included in this 

figure. 

ATTACHMENT 3 

37 

ATTACHMENT 4 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you, panel. Thank you for your 

valuable testimony. 

I believe we will begin with questions, and I now recognize 

myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Williams and also Mr. Moore, you saw the photograph up 

there of Mr. Huffman, Ranking Member, with the fish that he 

caught—I believe you said it was in either a sanctuary or—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. It is a sanctuary. 

Dr. FLEMING. Sanctuary. OK. So my question to you, Mr. 

Williams and Mr. Moore: will you be able to fish in sanctuary and 

monument areas? 

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Huffman, if you had gone 

fishing in the Channel Islands National Monument, as opposed to 

the Gulf of Farallones, you would not have been able to fish, because there is a massive marine protective area closure in both 

state and Federal waters in that island. 

So, it is going to depend on what regulations are in place in what 

area. 

Dr. FLEMING. Mr. Williams, what about you? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We are being told that we are not going to be allowed to go in there. I have not been told anything from NOAA. 

The environmental groups that are spearheading this have it 

closed for commercial fishing. 

Dr. FLEMING. What about that, Dr. Bamford? Are they going to 

be able to fish? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Again, for sanctuaries, the ones that exist, there 

is a lot of fishing that is allowed. Less than 2 percent of fishing 

is restricted within sanctuaries, based on the sanctuaries authorities and the Sanctuaries Act. We have thriving, both commercial 

and recreational fishing—— 

38 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, what about going forward? We are talking 

about new sanctuaries, new monuments. Is fishing going to be 

allowed or not? 

Dr. BAMFORD. New sanctuaries will be designed by the public. 

There is a very public process that we go through that includes the 

fishing councils and the fishermen. So it just will—— 

Dr. FLEMING. So, really you are not committing one way or 

another here today that there will be fishing. 

Dr. BAMFORD. That is correct. It will depend on the resources. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Now, Mr. Williams, you were at the 

September 15 town hall hosted by NOAA regarding the potential 

marine national monument designation in New England. In your 

testimony, you mentioned that it was hastily arranged and that 

NOAA provided little detail on the proposal. Could you elaborate 

a bit more on that and the town hall meeting as a whole? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Generally, whenever there is a public hearing or 

public meeting, you will find it in the Federal Register. I believe 

there is a regulation someplace; it has to go in 3 weeks prior to the 

meeting. 

This meeting was not announced until 10 days prior to the meeting. It went out in email, and it just went to a general NOAA 

emailing address; and many people that are actually in these fact 

sheets did not even know about the meeting. They are stakeholders, and they did not know about it until even up to the day 

before the meeting. 

Dr. FLEMING. And, Dr. Bamford, it seems like there was little or 

no notice. It was difficult for Mr. Williams. We know he is a busy 

businessman, commercial fisherman. What about that? 

What is your response to such lack of notice? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Although no public process is required on the 

Antiquities Act, we did want to hold a public process, a public 

meeting, and a listening session in the region. 

On September 1, the NGOs held a meeting at the aquarium, and 

they talked about this issue. We heard interest in it, so we wanted 

to follow up with a public—— 

Dr. FLEMING. But what do you say to Mr. Williams though? This 

is his trade craft. This is how he makes a living. He has employees, 

I am sure. What do you say about this? 

Does it really matter that he does not get notice? His business 

could be wiped out of existence. 

Dr. BAMFORD. The listening session is very important information. We are continuing to gather information. We are very thankful that Mr. Williams was there. The public comment period is still 

open, and he can submit continued comments into that process. 

Dr. FLEMING. Mr. Williams, what do you say about that? How 

does that impact your business? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it is unfortunate that this was the only 

meeting, and I was basically given 2 minutes. I mean even getting 

5 minutes in front of you was much better. 

It is pretty hard to go up and make a position to try to save your 

company in 2 minutes. 

Dr. FLEMING. Dr. Bamford, would you commit today to having 

more meetings, giving Mr. Williams and others an opportunity to 

make their plea? 

39 

We still do not know whether they are even going to be allowed 

to fish if this goes forward, but certainly their input is important. 

Would you agree? Would you agree to more meetings? 

Dr. BAMFORD. I would agree input is extremely important, and 

that is why we have the public comment period still open. 

In terms of our future schedule—— 

Dr. FLEMING. But I asked about meetings. 

Dr. BAMFORD. In terms of our future meeting schedule, I really 

cannot speak to that at this point, but continue to engage—— 

Dr. FLEMING. So you will not commit to more meetings? 

Dr. BAMFORD. In terms of our future schedule, I don’t know that 

at this time. We can get back to you on that. 

Dr. FLEMING. So, your schedule is more important than 

Mr. Williams’ business is what you are saying. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member for questions. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Just for the record, that is not what I heard you 

say. I will ask you, Dr. Bamford—we do a lot of strawman chasing 

here in the committee, we hear rumors and sometimes even concoct 

threats toward industries, and then have entire hearings that are 

about knocking down those strawmen. 

So, we are hearing about a petition to use the Antiquities Act, 

a petition not from anybody in government, not from anybody in 

Congress, from people entirely outside, to create a new national 

monument in the Aleutian. Is the Administration, to your knowledge, even considering a national monument designation in the 

Aleutians? 

Dr. BAMFORD. I have not been part of those discussions. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Yes. 

Dr. BAMFORD. But to my knowledge, no. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I have seen no evidence of it either, but it is one 

of many useful strawmen that we see in the political debate around 

here. 

Let me just ask you. Is a Presidential Proclamation under the 

Antiquities Act the only way a national monument can be created? 

Is there another way to use the Antiquities Act? 

Dr. BAMFORD. That is correct. There is another way. Congress, 

under legislation, can also designate a monument, as well as the 

President through the Antiquities Act. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Right, and in addition to the power to create 

national monuments, does Congress have the authority to rescind 

national monument designations? 

Dr. BAMFORD. I think so, but I am not 100 percent sure on that 

question. So I will have to get back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I think you are right. I think your ‘think so’ is 

right, and that they can. 

And, given that national monuments clearly are not permanent 

and, in fact, have been altered and even disbanded by Congress in 

the past, there is nothing to prevent the Majority, if they are so 

outraged about abusive designations of national monuments, to 

come up with a list of ones that they would like to see go away, 

put that list forward for public comment, and try to move legislation, instead of broad claims about abuse and improper use of the 

Antiquities Act. 

40 

Dr. Rosenberg, we have heard testimony that decisions on which 

areas will be closed to fishing are best left to the councils under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Do councils have the authority to prohibit drilling, mining, land-based pollution, things that could adversely affect fisheries resources other than just fishing? 

Dr. ROSENBERG. No, they do not. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. In your opinion, is it fair to say that some councils, such as the Pacific and North Pacific, have done a better job 

of protecting the ecosystems for healthy fish stocks than others? 

Dr. ROSENBERG. I think that is generally true; but it is more 

complicated than that, as you can imagine, because everyone had 

a different starting position from when the regulations moved into 

place. So, yes, I do think North Pacific and Pacific have generally 

done a better job, but they also had a much better starting position 

when the Act came into place. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Let me ask you specifically about the New 

England Council. Do you think that a failure by that Council to 

protect key spawning areas and other critical habitat contributed 

to the collapse of the cod stocks? 

Dr. ROSENBERG. I think it did. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Do you think a stronger network of marine protected areas in New England waters, including Cashes Ledge, 

would help groundfish stocks rebound, particularly in the face of 

climate change? 

Dr. ROSENBERG. I believe the Cashes Ledge is quite important. 

I do think that it would help cod stocks and some other groundfish 

stocks. Of course, the large, closed areas of New England have had 

a major impact for other groundfish stocks. We have very good evidence how effective they are, unfortunately not so much for cod. So, 

Cashes Ledge is a very important area. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Williams, I just want to say I appreciated your testimony. I 

appreciate the fact that you see value in the process. When you get 

folks in the room of different perspectives, the process can, and 

often does, work quite well. 

You obviously feel blindsided because you heard about a possible 

national monument designation that could move very quickly without the kind of process you are interested in, and I think your 

request for input, for more deliberation, and stakeholder involvement is a very reasonable one. 

My prediction, however, is that that’s going to happen. You 

know, we will see. We do a lot of hyperventilating here about 

things that are not real or never happened. My prediction is, that 

whether this goes the way of the Antiquities Act, or under the 

Sanctuaries Act or whatever, nobody is going to blindside you with 

some permanent Federal fishery closure. I suspect that there is 

going to be a very open, deliberative, and inclusive process that 

unfolds on anything that happens in that area. That is my prediction, and again, I just want to say I think your concern is understandable, but I think it will be considered and addressed. 

With that, I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. I am sure Mr. Williams appreciates your 

clairvoyance—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Yes. 

41 

Dr. FLEMING [continuing]. And ability to predict the future. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FLEMING. Mr. Young, I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do compliment Dr. Bamford. This Administration could dance 

better than the Rocky Bottom Boys almost. I have never seen 

groups not ever answer a question. That is what you have not 

done. 

Because no one wants to answer a question, you slip through the 

darkness and impose restrictions. The Antiquities Act was never 

meant for the ocean, never. Now to reach in, you say there is no 

worry about the Aleutians. Fine. Let’s put it into law. You want to 

solve the problem? Let’s put it into law. 

You say it is not there, say it is a straw boy? Let’s put it into 

law, because it will be proposed by this Administration. I will say 

this, because I have been here 44 years and I have watched this, 

‘‘We aren’t going to do anything to you. Don’t worry. The check is 

in the mail.’’ 

It has killed my timber industry and is trying to kill the fishing 

industry by federally-controlled management of fish, and I would 

say timber and all other resources, otherwise a socialist program. 

Has anybody explained to me, and I have listened to one doctor 

there, what advantage if someone has been fishing in an area for 

44 years, and then you cannot fish because you have decided that 

this is a pristine area. It is a pristine area and you have been fishing there for 44 years. You do not count. You made a living off the 

ocean, but it is more important to somebody from Boston, it is more 

important to somebody from San Francisco or Los Angeles, not to 

the fisherman. 

Now, of the fish, and remember I was the author and a sponsor 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act—if they are not sustainable, cannot 

provide it, the fishing is not allowed; but if you take fishing away 

from the fisherman when there is no danger to the fish and then 

you declare an Antiquities Act, you are taking the fishing industry 

away from that fisherman. And that has happened, and they are 

continuing to try to do it. 

We are buying more fish now from Thailand and Vietnam than 

we are catching ourselves. I challenge you to go over to Thailand 

and Vietnam and see how they can take care of their fish. 

We are taking care of our fish, and why would we impose—and 

the good lady said, we do not know for sure if they can fish or not. 

Let’s put it into law. Fishing that occurred in the past can continue 

to occur. 

Uh-uh, not going to do that because it is not a monument. It is 

not a sanctuary. It is an area, we are going to protect it from you. 

That is the thing that I have watched over and over, the creeping 

cancer of the Federal Government over-reaching. The worst managers of any resource is the Federal Government. They do not 

manage. They preclude. No happening at all. 

Mr. Oliver, you mentioned, I believe, or they mentioned in the 

questionings of the other councils, the councils are already doing a 

lot. What are they doing to help these things out? What are the 

councils doing? 

42 

Mr. OLIVER. I provided some examples of other regions around 

the country. I can speak certainly to the North Pacific. 

I would repeat the statistic I mentioned earlier in my testimony. 

We have 1.3 million square nautical miles that we manage, and 

two-thirds of that area, or about 665,000 square miles of it, is 

closed to all or most fishing activities. That is, I guess coincidentally, or perhaps ironically, equal in size to the 665,000 square 

miles that have been closed in the Western Pacific under monument designations. 

Mr. YOUNG. So what you are saying now—have any of these 

monuments been proposed in the areas already closed? 

Mr. OLIVER. We have not had any formal monument 

designations. 

Mr. YOUNG. Wait a minute. Listen. If you have that many acres 

off limits now, are any of the monuments that they are proposing 

in that area? No, that is the answer to that. 

Mr. OLIVER. No. 

Mr. YOUNG. They are proposing the areas that fishing takes 

place now; is that correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. The areas that I have heard discussed for proposed 

monument designation include areas like the Aleutian Islands, 

which are currently under our participatory, science-based process. 

Only 6 percent of that area, for example, is open to cod fishing; but 

it is critically important that that area be open to cod fishing. 

Mr. YOUNG. And that is the area they are proposing. 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. They say this is a strawman—baloney. I know when 

they propose something, it is going to be attempted by, and you say 

you can do it by legislation. We have a one-man delegation. You 

have 52, I believe. A one-man delegation, and I am going to change 

the Congress to try to solve the problem? You know that is not 

going to happen. 

So, I am saying that Congress should not allow these monuments 

set aside and sanctuaries set aside in the fishing area, period, until 

it is cleared by the Congress. Let the Congress say. 

Why do we let the President do this all the time? Let the 

Congress make that decision. If you decide you want to make it 

through the congressional level, then let it happen. I am still only 

one guy. 

But maybe, just maybe, instead of the agencies doing it, it would 

be the right way to do a democracy, not the Federal agency telling 

us what to do. 

Twentieth, Mr. Chairman, we are ranked today on freedom. That 

is how far we have gone down the line. 

I yield. I do not have any more. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman’s time is up. The gentleman yields. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sablan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and good 

morning, everyone. 

Mr. Chairman, I actually never left the subcommittee. I could 

not. Whenever the word ‘‘old-shunist,’’ I am there. I am glad to be 

back. 

Thank you for holding today’s hearing, and while I cannot speak 

for the residents of Alaska and Cape Cod, where there are petitions 

43 

pending with the Administration to designate areas off of Alaska 

and Massachusetts, I can speak to you about an existing national 

marine monument that surrounds the Northern Mariana Islands, 

the district I represent. 

While some people may see the establishment of monuments as 

cutting off commercial fishing access, undermining domestic seafood supplies and associated jobs, and harming the environment, 

this is not entirely the case in the Marianas Trench Marine 

National Monument. 

Then-President George W. Bush established a Marianas Trench 

Marine National Monument by Presidential Proclamation in 

January of 2009. Over 6,000 people in the Northern Mariana 

Islands supported the creation of the monument in a petition campaign to the White House. 

As I have said before, we are justifiably proud of this world class 

conservation area: 95,216 square miles of submerged land and 

ocean waters. The marine monument that President Bush established is truly a national wonder. It includes the Marianas Trench, 

the deepest point on earth. It includes 21 undersea mud volcanoes 

and thermal vents harboring exotic forms of life in some of the 

harshest conditions imaginable. 

A pool of liquid sulfur at the Daikoku submarine volcano in the 

monument is one of only two known locations of molten sulfur. The 

other one is on Io, one of the moons of Jupiter. 

In the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, we 

value the monument. It is home to species ranging from stony 

corals to threatened sea turtles to unique deep sea animals. Protecting this and other special places from destruction is critical to 

scientific discovery and natural resource management. 

After the creation of the monument, it was important to follow 

up with education, scientific research, and exploration of this vast 

area. That is why I had introduced bills that would authorize the 

construction of a multipurpose visitor center for the interpretation, 

public education, and enjoyment of the marine environment within 

the boundaries of the Marianas Trench Marine National 

Monument. 

Later, I was able to secure funding through appropriations for 

the assessment of a possible visitor center site, and last year in 

September, the Marianas Trench Monument Advisory Council 

hosted public meetings to gather ideas from the community regarding the purpose and location for the visitor center. 

A final report has been drafted and is being reviewed by the 

Commonwealth government. 

Management plans are also being hashed out, especially as the 

Commonwealth government and the Federal Government continues 

negotiations on the terms to coordinate management around the 

island’s unit, which includes management of the waters and submerged lands of the three northernmost Mariana Islands. 

Back in 2013, we were able to address management measures to 

allow noncommercial fishing, including subsistence, recreational, 

and traditional indigenous fishing, within the island units. This 

was an important step to harmonize the traditions of the people of 

the Northern Mariana Islands while at the same time to help protect and preserve valuable natural resources. 

44 

Its location is different, and any president considering establishing or expanding a marine monument should always thoroughly 

consider the benefit and impacts to that area. 

I will being my line of questioning with Dr. Bamford. 

Dr. Bamford, how close are you to finalizing an agreement with 

the Commonwealth government on the coordination of management of the protection of resources of the monument? 

And, can you please provide, as I have very little time, a brief 

description of NOAA’s plan to support the Marianas Trench 

Monument in the upcoming fiscal year? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Thank you. 

Yes, we have provided, as you said, a draft management plan to 

CNMI, and they are currently reviewing that. As you know, they 

have been hit by a number of typhoons so they have been pretty 

busy, but they are getting to it. 

We have a great working relationship with CNMI and are 

looking forward to completing that. 

Mr. SABLAN. When? When? When? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Hopefully, as soon as possible. 

Mr. SABLAN. That is not a time. 

Dr. BAMFORD. Well, it is in CNMI’s hands right now. 

Mr. SABLAN. I understand. 

Dr. BAMFORD. So, hopefully, they will get that to us as soon as 

possible. 

Mr. SABLAN. I empathize with Mr. Young’s statement that he is 

a single delegation. Imagine not just being a single delegation, but 

being a delegate and also getting the Federal Government—Mr. 

Chairman, my time is up. I will yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for questions. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Pivoting off of what my colleague from Alaska was saying here, 

when you are looking at a designation of a monument, sanctuary, 

or wilderness area, it only takes one signature by the executive. We 

heard the gentleman, Mr. Moore, talking about how he had 

2 minutes to make his case, right? Is that not what you said 

earlier? 

Mr. MOORE. No, that was Mr. Williams, I believe, sir. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Oh, was it Mr. Williams? OK. I am hopping 

around here. Sorry. 

The gentlemen who are in business here, 2 minutes to make your 

case for something that gravely important to you versus a stroke 

of a pen down at 1600 Pennsylvania, and then it was asserted that, 

‘‘Well, you can repeal it any time.’’ 

It takes 218 plus 60 plus 1. As you have noticed, things do not 

move very quickly in this body around here, nor do you align the 

planets, or the blood moon or whatever it is, that often to get that 

done very often. 

So, once you have one of these designations, it just does not come 

right back off, and the public process can be very spotty. 

I have clairvoyant prediction as well. Sometime in the next 16 

months, there will be several new wilderness areas, monuments, 

others put in place with little activity from the people that really 

are paying for it being able to counteract that. 

45 

So, I am not happy with it when Ms. Bamford mentioned also 

that there is no requirement of public process in the Antiquities 

Act. You said that, correct? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. So it is the public who loses out on it. As I 

watch our forests burn in California in the West, seeing how the 

Federal Government being in charge of that Federal land is continuing to let that happen, I do not think we need to have a heck 

of a lot more lack of public process in how these things are 

managed. 

Let me get to a question or two here quickly. The gentleman 

from Alaska was speaking about the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 

there will be a reauthorization of that in H.R. 1335, that the Act 

would be the controlling fishery management authority in cases of 

conflict with sanctuaries or monuments, et cetera, under the 

Antiquities Act. 

First of all, Ms. Bamford, do you support this language in 

H.R. 1335? 

Dr. BAMFORD. As a single agency under the Administration, I 

cannot really comment on that legislation at this time. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So how difficult is it? What is the process for getting permitting to fish in an area that is not already designated as 

a monument or a sanctuary? What is the process one would have 

to go through to go out and set up shop and start a fishing operation in any area not designated, just for the record? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Typically the requirements for fishing in Federal 

waters would be worked through the Fisheries Management Council process. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And what kind of permitting does that look like? 

Dr. BAMFORD. I think it depends on the type of fishing, if it is 

trawling, if it is in the water column. There would be various permits and processes that would take place depending on the type of 

fishing and the type of region that you are in. 

Mr. LAMALFA. If I wanted to set up shop to take any type of fishing, are there permits available? Are they all taken up? Are they 

expensive? What is the time line for them, things like that? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Again, it depends on the region and what fish you 

are actually talking about, but I can get you specifics as a followup. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, would you say there are permits readily 

available for most types of species, whether it is trawling, whether 

it is shellfish, what? 

Dr. BAMFORD. I am not sure. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. I would guess that they are not very easy to 

get a hold of and that they are pretty expensive. My understanding 

is that these permits are kind of like something that is inherited, 

or passed through generations or sublet, and so you do not easily 

just set up shop fishing. 

What I am getting to is that the designation of a marine sanctuary or a monument is a vast over-reach when you already have 

a regulatory scheme in place that monitors and keeps in check the 

amount of fishing that goes on. 

And, indeed, if you are having an enforcement operation, is it 

any easier to enforce people that have a permit for fishing versus 

46 

those that should not be out there at all? Is it the same amount 

of effort for enforcement personnel to enforce inside a sanctuary 

versus legalized fishing in maybe a similar area? 

Dr. BAMFORD. We focus our enforcement within the sanctuaries, 

monuments, and fishing grounds as appropriate. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Lowenthal is recognized. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am glad we are 

having this hearing today. In my state of California, we have one 

of the largest ocean economies in the country, but we also understand the importance of, and the value of, setting aside large areas 

of the ocean for conservation, and we are talking about national 

marine sanctuaries, but we are also talking about, in the discussion today, we are talking about all of the marine protected areas. 

As has been pointed out, although we have set aside thousands 

of acres of Federal and state waters protected areas, which include 

as we know the sanctuaries, the reserves, and the monuments, no 

take fishing amounts to only slightly less than 3 percent of the 

areas of water that are dedicated. 

So, we are not talking about a large amount of area, because in 

our toolbox, which we are really talking about what should be in 

the toolbox, there are many things to preserve our ecosystem, how 

we can build resilience. We can use this to build resilient ecosystems, rebuild fish stocks; and we can also do that without totally eliminating the ability to fish, and that is really what we are 

talking about. 

I think it is really important that we go about setting aside marine protected areas in the right way to maximize ecosystems and 

economic benefits. Marine protected areas offer great long-term 

protection and conservation potential, but as with any tool as we 

are hearing, the type of protection needs to be carefully matched 

to the conservation and fishery management goals that we set out 

for an area. 

We need to make sure that communities are on board because 

public input and buy-in is important. We also need to ensure that 

management is ecosystem-based, includes relevant stakeholder 

partnerships, and that scientists do have access to track the conservation’s progress and to measure results. 

Finally, and this is our job in Congress, we need to make sure 

that sanctuaries, wildlife refuges, and monuments have adequate 

funding in order to properly manage these conservation areas. 

My questions are to Dr. Bamford. As the Chair, myself, of the 

Safe Climate Caucus, I am very much interested in how we can increase the resiliency in the face of climate change. You have been 

a leader in efforts to build resiliency to climate change and to 

managing our oceans and coastal resources to best address a shifting climate. 

What I would like to know is: what are the scientifically accepted 

practices for increasing the resiliency of ecosystems to respond to 

these changes? That is my first question. 

Dr. BAMFORD. Ecosystems, we have shown in studies, are significantly important to improving the resiliency of any coastal community. We have seen it for essential fish habitat; but beyond that, 

47 

we have seen it for coastal protection of severe storms as well as 

flooding, both nuisance flooding that can happen on sunny days 

during high tides and high winds, as well as during major storms. 

So, ecosystems provide a suite of services, not only for the 

ecosystem and the species that live in the water, but for the 

community itself. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Good. So you believe then, in talking about 

habitat protection, that some highly valuable and diverse marine 

ecosystems for permanent protections can aid in that effort; that’s 

what you believe? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Yes, sir. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Dr. Rosenberg, are there changes happening in 

the oceans that are impacting marine ecosystems and fish stocks? 

Dr. ROSENBERG. Yes, there are. Certainly, the ongoing effects of 

climate change as detailed in the National Climate Assessment are 

changing the conditions for marine ecosystems, and we have seen 

quite a bit of that in the Northeast, including, of course, the impact 

on iconic cod stocks. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. In your testimony and here, you raise the concept of marine protected areas as a hedge against uncertainty and 

overexploitation of resources. 

Do you believe that climate change makes hedging our bets in 

this respect even more important? 

Dr. ROSENBERG. Absolutely. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Radewagen is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Chairman Fleming and Ranking 

Member Huffman, for holding today’s hearing. 

I also want to thank the panel for being here today. 

In my home district of American Samoa, the ocean plays a culturally and economically significant role in day-to-day life, and has 

for hundreds of years. Long before American Samoa became a U.S. 

territory, people have fished for their livelihood in these waters 

that surround the island, and to this day these traditional fishing 

methods are still practiced. 

In addition to the cultural significance, commercial fishing and 

the related industries make up nearly 80 percent of our island 

economy. So, I would not be exaggerating if I said the people of 

American Samoa understand better than most the importance of 

protecting our oceans, and how much of an impact those broad, 

sweeping administrative decisions have on individual communities. 

Mr. Oliver, fishing is a mainstay for the local culture and economy in American Samoa, and both sanctuaries and marine national 

monuments in the Western Pacific have impacts on our fisheries. 

Many proponents of marine monuments say they do not hurt 

commercial fishing because the grounds directly outside of the 

monument become more fruitful. 

However, in your testimony you seem to indicate that may not 

always be the case. Looking at the monuments in the Western 

Pacific, what did those designations do to commercial fishing? 

Also, in your professional opinion, have the monuments in the 

Western Pacific succeeded in aiding the species they were created 

to protect, such as the monk seal? 

48 

Mr. OLIVER. I am not an expert on Western Pacific fisheries, but 

I can respond to that question based on my general knowledge and 

information that was provided to me for this hearing by the 

Western Pacific Council. 

Any time you close an area, you move fishing effort into other 

areas, concentrated on the margins of the closed areas. If you do 

such a closure designation without a real knowledge of what those 

impacts are, you do not know whether you are moving fishing effort 

into areas that have a greater impact or a higher bycatch. All you 

know is that you have displaced fisheries. 

In the case of the Western Pacific Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands, the purported creation of the monument was for the protection of endangered monk seals from fishing, and also for protecting that area for fish stock recruitment, essentially for seeding 

other areas. 

Recent scientific publications on that have actually shown that to 

be unfounded. In fact, somewhat ironically, the monk seal populations appear to be migrating out of the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands and into the main Hawaiian Island areas which, in fact, is 

where the effort was displaced directly into, where the displaced 

fishing effort now occurs. 

That research also indicated that the connectivity in terms of 

stock recruitment, the connectivity between the main Hawaiian 

Islands and the Northwest Islands, is quite limited. Therefore, the 

main Hawaiian Islands will not receive substantial benefit from 

that closure. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Mrs. Torres for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you, and good morning. 

Mr. Rosenberg, the majority of the Fishery Management Council 

members are participants in, or otherwise financially linked to, the 

commercial or recreational fishing industry. Their votes are the 

ones who also determine how the Council manages offshore conservation efforts. 

Do you think that this process produces the best outcomes, or 

could it be improved? 

Dr. ROSENBERG. Thank you for the question. 

You are certainly correct in terms of the membership of the councils. I believe that there has been significant progress in fishery 

management. Of course, the process could be improved. I think 

with the discussion that we are having today, although we are centering on fisheries, we have sort of left to the side all of the other 

issues that occur within an area that might be designated as a 

monument, such as the seamounts, canyons, and ledge areas for 

biodiversity; and the councils, while they touch on that and habitat, 

it is really only focused on the impacts on fisheries. 

Mrs. TORRES. So how are the comments and priorities of 

nonfishing members incorporated into Council decisions? 

Dr. ROSENBERG. There is a public process and usually the people 

who participate in that are from the nongovernmental organization. There is an opportunity for the broader public, but by and 

large, the broader public does not participate in the process. It is 

largely the fishing industry, both recreational—— 

49 

Mrs. TORRES. The majority of you, as citizens, cannot participate 

because either they do not know about these processes, are left out 

because they are not members, or they do not have a participating 

member on this council or these councils. 

Dr. ROSENBERG. They are not precluded from participating, but 

what you just stated is correct. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you. 

Dr. Bamford, we have heard that there are potential adverse impacts resulting from the creation of sanctuaries and monuments. I 

also know that there are positive economic impacts. 

Can you talk a little bit about those positive economic impacts? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Yes. Thank you for the question. 

It is estimated, as I said in my opening remarks, that sanctuaries can generate about $4 billion annually to coastal communities. There is also a significant increase in tourism and 

recreation. 

For example, up in the Great Lakes, we have the Thunder Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary. It has generated $92 million in sales 

and $35 million in personal income, and has generated over 1,700 

jobs in that region. 

The visitor center at Thunder Bay, which is located in Alpena, 

a population of only 11,000 people, gets 60,000 visitors annually. 

That is three times the amount of the population, so it is an extremely populated destination for tourists. 

Mrs. TORRES. And, it is because of this impact with tourism coming into these communities, that would otherwise not have solid 

employment opportunities, that I think it is critical for outsiders, 

that are not professional fishermen or financially linked to these 

management councils, to have an opportunity to be able to participate in the dialog as we move forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the rest of my time. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. MacArthur is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have heard a lot of different Acts mentioned this morning: 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 

Antiquities Act. I have heard programs mentioned under those: the 

National Monuments Program, the Marine National Monuments 

Program. 

I guess I would start with you, Dr. Bamford. Do you see these 

as parallel paths to achieve identical objectives, or do you think 

each of these has a unique purpose? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Congress has created a number of different authorities for the Administration, as well as the President, to look 

at conservation. I do think they are different. 

We have seen in the Sanctuaries Act, in the sanctuaries process, 

it is completely different from the monument process, which is also 

different from the Fisheries Management Council process. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Following on that, these all seem to have a 

nexus in your world, in NOAA, and I appreciate that. I represent 

a coastal area and a lot of interests, fishing interests and recreational interests, and I appreciate the work that NOAA does; but 

with regard to the Antiquities Act, what would you see as the primary purpose of that Act? 

50 

Dr. BAMFORD. So the primary purpose of that Act would be that 

it grants the President an opportunity to protect objects in the 

ocean to the fullest extent. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. In your opinion is trying to achieve environmental objectives, as worthy as they might be to people, is that in 

your view, consistent with the primary purpose of the Antiquities 

Act as it was intended in 1906? 

Dr. BAMFORD. I cannot speak to the original intent, but the 

Antiquities Act required that the President designate objects to be 

protected and assures those protections through that authority. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. For the record, I would state my strong opinion 

that it is being abused, and that its purpose is trying to be twisted 

by people who did not get their way through the obvious path and 

are now wanting to go a different route and hopefully get a different result. 

I will stay with you, if I might, for another minute. Representative Huffman predicted an open process, and I would like you to 

follow on—you were asked about this earlier, but you did say that 

no public process is required under the Antiquities Act; is that 

correct? 

Dr. BAMFORD. That is correct. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. So, how would we achieve this public process 

that was predicted? How will people have any input into this process if there is no public process required? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Under the American Great Outdoors Act, this 

Administration has stated that it will have an open and transparent process for any monument designations. Although there is 

no public process required for the previous four national marine 

monuments in the Pacific that NOAA was involved with, there was 

public engagement, and so we are hoping that that process continues to help in decisionmaking. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. I am hoping, too, although when it is not 

required by law, I become less optimistic in my hope. 

Mr. Moore, I appreciated your testimony because, with all of this 

highfalutin talk about hopes and dreams and what we are going to 

do, it is good to be reminded that it affects real people, and the 

same with you, Mr. Williams. I thought it is helpful to be reminded 

that it affects real people. 

And I guess I would ask you. I have gill netters, long liners, scallopers, and trawlers; I have them all. I have recreational fishermen 

that go out off the New England Coast and the Jersey Shore. I 

have people who make their living. We have a $4 billion fishing 

industry, and I have people that feed their wives, husbands, and 

children. They make their livings. They employ people. 

What do I tell them when suddenly we have just decided without 

a public process being required, that suddenly this area is so pristine and so essential for the happiness of America that you can no 

longer fish in it? 

How do we respond to people like that? 

Mr. MOORE. I wish I knew, Mr. MacArthur. To me it makes no 

sense. You have the sanctuary process, which is locally-based and 

has a public process and so forth, which can designate discrete 

areas as perhaps worthy of protection, but it does not designate a 

massive area with just the stroke of one person’s pen. 

51 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Well, I agree. I wish I had more time to discuss 

it more, but I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Gentlewoman Dingell for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is an interesting one, and it is an issue we 

should be examining very closely. However, the fact of the matter 

is that the national marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments have been very useful tools to protect some of the world’s 

most iconic treasures, even if they lie on the ocean floor. 

Testimony today has raised concerns that the new designations 

could hinder economic activity and cost jobs, and if that is indeed 

the case, I have some very serious questions, as have been raised, 

and I guess my colleague from Alaska is no longer here and others 

followed on it. I would like to say I would love to do more bipartisan talking about some of these issues in the Congress and wish 

we could do more together and find ways to do that. We do not do 

enough of it. But I will leave that. That will be my last editorial 

comment of the day. 

Let me ask some questions that will explore this economic cost 

of jobs. Dr. Bamford, is it true that there is no hard and fast rule 

banning fishing in the marine national monuments, but that 

Presidential Proclamations and management plans for individual 

monuments dictate what is and is not allowed? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Yes, ma’am, that is correct. It is depending on the 

objects being protected. Basically under the Antiquities Act and a 

monument, the President designates the object to be protected and 

assures their proper care and management. 

Mrs. DINGELL. So are there monuments in sanctuaries that allow 

fishing? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Can you please provide a list for the record of all 

the monuments and sanctuaries that allow fishing? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Yes, we can. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Then I want to build on some previous questions 

with both you and Dr. Rosenberg. Dr. Bamford, can you discuss 

how your agency balances the economic needs with conservation 

priorities when managing the national marine sanctuaries or 

monuments? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Sure. We always try to balance economic, social, 

cultural, and heritage needs as well as the resources. We take an 

ecosystem-based approach to our management authorities. We do 

that through various processes. 

For example, the sanctuaries process is a process that is bottom 

up. We work with the Sanctuaries Advisory Council. We take public input. We work with the community in the region to ensure we 

are balancing each of those pieces. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Dr. Rosenberg, to what extent do fishery 

management councils take into account the needs and interests of 

other ocean users, such as ocean tourism and whale watching businesses, et cetera? 

Is the Council process adequate to meet all of our important 

resource conservation challenges? 

52 

Dr. ROSENBERG. Those other activities are taken into account 

through the public process that the councils run; but, no, I do not 

believe it is adequate. I believe that is the reason why we have different authorities for different areas, like the Sanctuaries Act, in 

addition to the Fisheries Management Act. The Fisheries Management Act is focused on fisheries. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair recognizes Congressman Graves for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much for being here, Dr. Bamford, and I 

welcome you back to being in the committee. I appreciate you being 

here again. 

I am struggling a little bit with the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act. Why would Congress establish a process whereby you could establish a national marine sanctuary, and then at the same time, 

have a law that predated it that Congress intended to allow for the 

President to create these offshore areas through the Antiquities 

Act. 

Dr. BAMFORD. Congress has created a number of different authorities to the agencies and to the President for protecting natural 

resources for various reasons. These include the Outer Continental 

Shelf Act, Sanctuaries Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act, Coastal Zone 

Management Act; and I think the Administration looks at all of 

those tools in the toolkit to decide, based on what resource they are 

looking to protect. 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes, but none of those other ones allow to set areas 

offshore and put restrictions on them in regard to designating them 

as sanctuaries or otherwise off limit zones. That would only be the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, correct? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Say that again. 

Mr. GRAVES. In terms of actually designating an area as protected area, only the sanctuaries authority in this case would apply 

in terms of being able to actually designate it as a protected area, 

largely. 

Dr. BAMFORD. I think—— 

Mr. GRAVES. You have other things, essential fish habitat—— 

Dr. BAMFORD. Sure. 

Mr. GRAVES [continuing]. And things along those lines which I 

understand, but in regard to establishing an area as a protected 

area, like you would a national park or something else, those two 

are the only ones that apply here. 

Dr. BAMFORD. There could be others, but the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act does designate certain areas under the Sanctuaries 

Act as protected and managed. 

Mr. GRAVES. I just want to make note again that the Antiquities 

Act only makes reference to land, whereas obviously the Marine 

Sanctuaries Act applies to offshore areas. 

Why do you think it is appropriate to avoid using authorities like 

NEPA and APA to apply to the Antiquities Act process? 

Dr. BAMFORD. The President is not subject to the NEPA process, 

but once the monument is created or any monument is created, the 

agencies then promulgating any regulations or authorities do go 

through that NEPA process. 

53 

Mr. GRAVES. But is there any other case whereby a Federal 

project, program, or some activity would be carried out whereby 

you would sort of retroactively apply NEPA or APA, as opposed to 

doing it on the front end to help inform your decision in determining whether or not that it makes sense to actually do the 

designation to begin with and understanding socioeconomic, environmental impacts, and others? 

Dr. BAMFORD. Again, the President is not subject to NEPA, but 

many agencies then that have management authority are, and we 

go through that process doing delegation of any rules and 

regulations. 

Mr. GRAVES. So the answer is no? My question was: Is there any 

other situation where NEPA and APA effectively are applied retroactively like this? 

Dr. BAMFORD. To Federal agencies? Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. 

This really seems to be somewhat of a black box type process. 

NEPA does provide sort of a window into that. It allows for public 

participation, allows for I think the agency to get a fully informed 

approach to these decisions on the front end, and it seems entirely 

contrary to a lot of the messaging that this Administration has 

done in the past about transparency, making sure that decisions 

are fully informed, and environmental consequences are being considered. It just seems entirely inappropriate in this case. 

What role do you see Congress having in terms of the role in 

making these designations? Certainly, there are cost implications 

and other things, which is a role of the Congress. What role do you 

see Congress playing in terms of designating these monuments? 

Dr. BAMFORD. I do not want to define your role, but Congress has 

created the Antiquities Act and also Congress can, through legislation, designate a monument if they choose to. 

Mr. GRAVES. But in regard to the designations or potential designations, it sounds like you are suggesting that Congress largely 

just play a bystander role, despite the fact that there could be significant cost implications on these decisions. 

Dr. BAMFORD. I do not—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, one last question if I can. 

Years ago there was a proposal that was out there. I believe it 

was called ‘‘Island in the Streams.’’ It was a proposal for a 

potential monument designation in the Gulf of Mexico. Can you tell 

me if there are any potential monument designations in the Gulf 

of Mexico that are currently under consideration by the 

Administration? 

Dr. BAMFORD. No, sir, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. GRAVES. I just want to be clear, and certainly the Chairman 

knows this as well as I do. The Gulf of Mexico is a unique area; 

and coastal Louisiana in particular is known as being a working 

coast. We have been able to be the top offshore energy producer, 

the top commercial fisheries producer, I think the fourth top recreational commercial fisheries in the Continental United States, I 

think the fourth top recreational fishing destination, and one of the 

most productive ecosystems on the continent. 

We have been able to manage all of those things at the same 

time, and we have done a good job at that. I just want to make 

54 

note that the management regime that is underway today seems 

to be working really well, and I think any efforts to come in and 

distort that would be problematic and not met very well among the 

Gulf Coast states. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. And among all those things, the best food. 

We thank the panel members today for your valuable testimony. 

It has been very interesting and very informative. 

Members may have additional questions; we will submit those in 

writing and would appreciate your response on that. 

If there is no further business, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ