U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–977 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–224 

MARINE SANCTUARIES: FISHERIES, ACCESS, 

THE ENVIRONMENT, AND MARITIME HERITAGE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 27, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 27, 2017 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Sullivan ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 3 

Letter dated July 10, 2017 from Charles N. Wiesen, Board President, 

Friends of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary to Hon. Gary 

Peters ............................................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 62 

Letter dated June 23, 2017 from Kevin Powers, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters ............................................................................................ 63 

WITNESSES

Ernest Weiss, Natural Resources Director, Aleutians East Borough .................. 6 

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

Captain Scott Hickman, Owner, Circle H Outfitters ............................................ 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Captain Jeremiah O’Brien, former President, Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Association ................................................................................................. 21 

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

Letter dated January 31, 2017 to Michael Flores, President, California 

Fish and Game Commission from Karen Grimmer, Acting Superintendent, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary .............................. 60 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr., former Administrator, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ......................................................... 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

APPENDIX

Kristen J. Sarri, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Marine 

Sanctuary Foundation, prepared statement ...................................................... 67 

Letter from Stephen D. Kroll to Senator Gary Peters regarding Executive 

Order 13795, Section 4(b)—America First Offshore Energy ............................ 73 

Letter to Senator Dan Sullivan from Margaret (P.J.) Webb, Public Interest 

Attorney at Law ................................................................................................... 74 

Letter dated June 23, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Vicki Nichols Goldstein, Founder and Director, Inland Ocean Coalition ........................................................................................................................ 74

Letter dated June 23, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan from Dan Haifley, 

Executive Director, O’Neill Sea Odyssey ........................................................... 75 

Letter dated June 23, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Betsy Alles, Executive Director, Sheboygan County Chamber of Commerce ..................................................................................................................... 76 

Letter dated June 23, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Howard H. Hoege III, President and CEO, The Mariner’s Museum 

and Park ............................................................................................................... 76 

Letter dated June 23, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Kevin Powers, Volunteer, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary ...................................................................................................................... 78 

Letter dated June 23, 2017 to Subcommittee on Marine Sanctuaries: Fisheries, Access, the Environment, and Maritime Heritage, c/o U.S. Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation from Amy K, Wilson, 

Ph.D., President/CEO, Visit Sheboygan, Inc. .................................................... 79 

Page

IV 

Letter dated June 25, 2017 to U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard from Brad 

Snook, Chair, Surfrider Foundation San Luis Obispo ...................................... 81 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan from Karl Kempton, 

Health Food Grower ............................................................................................. 81 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Kathy Tank, Executive Director, Port Washington Tourism Council 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 82 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Jason Ring, President, Manitowoc Area Visitor & Convention Bureau . 82 

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, Resolution 05-2017M submitted by Denis Coderre, Chair, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Initiative 

and Mayor, City of Montr ́eal ............................................................................... 83 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Stephen M. Bunker, Chairman, Friends of Mallows Potomac NMS ...... 84 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Kathy Dahlkemper, County Executive, Erie County, Pennsylvania ...... 85 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Philip Church, County Administrator, County of Oswego and Chairman, Great Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary Nomination Task 

Force ...................................................................................................................... 86 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan from Bruce Popham, 

Chair, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council and 

Owner, Marathon Boat Yard and Marine Center ............................................. 90 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Cathryn R. Newton, Special Advisor to the Chancellor, Provost for 

Faculty Engagement and Professor of Earth and Interdisciplinary Sciences, 

Syracuse University ............................................................................................. 91 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Michael Vandersteen, Mayor, City of Sheboygan ..................................... 92 

Letter dated June 26, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Jan Newton, NANOOS Executive Director and Senior Principal 

Oceanographer, University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory ......... 93 

Letter dated June 27, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan from Christine 

Heinrichs ............................................................................................................... 93 

Letter dated June 27, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Joel Dunn, President and CEO, Chesapeake Conservancy ..................... 94 

Letter dated June 28, 2017 to Senator Gary Peters from Jackie Krawczak, 

President/CEO, Alpena Area Chamber of Commerce ....................................... 95 

Letter dated June 28, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Laura Howes, Director, Marine Education and Conservation, Boston 

Harbor Cruises ..................................................................................................... 95 

Letter dated July 10, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Keith Creagh, Director, State of Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources .............................................................................................................. 96 

Letter dated July 10, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Noah Oppenheim, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Association ...................................................................................... 97 

Letter dated July 11, 2017 to Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Gary Peters 

from Jon Forrest Dohlin, Vice President and Director, Wildlife Conservation 

Society’s New York Aquarium ............................................................................. 98 

Response to written questions submitted to Ernest Weiss by: 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 100 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 101 

Response to written questions submitted to Captain Scott Hickman by: 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 101 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 103 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to Captain 

Jeremiah O’Brien ................................................................................................. 103 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to Vice Admiral 

Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr. ................................................................................ 105 

(1) 

MARINE SANCTUARIES: FISHERIES, 

ACCESS, THE ENVIRONMENT, 

AND MARITIME HERITAGE 

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Gardner, Young, Peters, 

Markey, and Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and the Coast Guard will now come to order. 

Good morning. I’d like to thank our witnesses for appearing 

today before this Subcommittee. Many have traveled a very long 

way to get here, and we very much appreciate that. 

This morning, we’re going to talk about the National Marine 

Sanctuary Act, which grants the Secretary of Commerce the authority to designate areas of additional restriction and management over areas in America’s oceans and Great Lakes and their 

unique conservation, cultural, or historic significance. While the 

concept of National Marine Sanctuaries are well intentioned, many 

of these protected areas have caused some challenges for coastal 

and Great Lakes communities across the country that are dependent upon the abundant resources found in America’s waters. 

Recognizing these concerns, President Trump recently issued an 

Executive Order that pauses the Secretary from issuing any new 

designations and instituting a review of current sanctuaries. Just 

last week, NOAA initiated a public comment period for this review. 

Now, marine sanctuaries vary in size, with some less than one 

square mile and others that exceed 6,000 square miles. Today, 

sanctuaries encompass more than 600,000 square miles. 

Similar to the Antiquities Act, the National Marine Sanctuary 

Act is one of the few laws that allows for unilateral and restrictive 

conservation designations solely by the Executive Branch. This is 

an extraordinary power. Designating national parks, forests, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other conservation areas 

2 

all typically require congressional action and, of course, stakeholder 

input, which encourages an open and public process that takes 

local views into account, an important element and subtopic of today’s hearing. 

In 2014, NOAA reestablished a process by which individuals and 

entities may nominate areas for consideration as a National Marine Sanctuary. The criteria for areas that are eligible to become 

a National Marine Sanctuary is considerably broad. Since then, a 

multitude of nominations have been submitted. This is of serious 

concern, given the limited resources we currently have available to 

manage these areas. 

As new areas are designated, existing resources are stretched 

ever thinner. The Sanctuary Act wisely recognized this potential 

pitfall and includes language that prohibits the creation of new 

sanctuaries if their establishment would threaten the management 

efforts of other sanctuaries. 

Another aspect of the sanctuary designation and establishment 

process that I look forward to hearing about in today’s hearing is 

NOAA’s consideration of the views of the public, local communities, 

and existing management bodies, such as the councils under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Sanctuary Act requires stakeholder engagement, but has no stipulation that any of it be taken into consideration. This can lead to communities who are most impacted by 

these designations feeling betrayed by the agency when the established sanctuaries are unrecognizable to the very communities that 

spent years working to form a mutually beneficial designation and 

management structure. 

In addition, the National Marine Sanctuary designation process 

gives NOAA virtually limitless authority to outline the regulations 

that apply in these sanctuaries. Among other things, National Marine Sanctuaries establish duplicative regulations that can limit 

sustainable and economically beneficial commercial and recreational fishing, usurping the authority of existing management 

entities such as the Regional Fisheries Management Councils, as I 

already mentioned, that have established authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. When this happens, the protection of America’s 

precious marine resources is taken out of the hands of the very institutions and experts who have so successfully managed these resources for generations. 

Since enactment in 1972, the Sanctuary Act has been reauthorized six times, most recently in 2000. That was over seventeen 

years ago. 

Today, we will hear from some of these user groups and communities about challenges and deficiencies in the designation and 

management of sanctuaries, and I know their expertise and experiences will help guide us to make sure, if we have any beneficial 

changes to the program, it includes more effective, efficient, and responsive ways in which to engage local communities who are impacted the most. 

I want to recognize Senator Peters for his focus on this issue as 

well and recognize him for any opening statement he might have. 

Senator Peters. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

calling this hearing together, and I’d like to thank each of our witnesses for making the time to come before us today and testify. I 

know many of you had to travel a great distance to be here, and 

that effort is very much appreciated. 

Sanctuaries are very dear and near to my heart as well as to 

Michigan’s economy. I think we have a really good story to tell 

about the Thunder Bay Sanctuary in my state. In fact, I received 

a note from a fellow Michigander yesterday that I’d like to have entered into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

FRIENDS OF THUNDER BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Alpena, MI, July 10, 2017 

Hon. GARY PETERS, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Peters, 

I am writing to you in regard to Executive Order 13795, Section 4(b)—America 

First Offshore Energy. On behalf of the Friends of Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary (TBNMS), a nonprofit 501(c) 3 organization formed in 2010 by a group 

of local residents who strongly believe in the sanctuary’s mission, we ask for your 

support. With the sanctuary headquarters located in Alpena, Michigan, I cannot tell 

you how many times I have heard local residents and business leaders say, ‘‘The 

sanctuary is the best thing that’s ever happened to northeast Michigan.’’ 

In addition to fostering awareness and stewardship of one of the world’s largest 

bodies of fresh water, the sanctuary has had a remarkable impact on boosting tourism and the local economy. Just yesterday evening a new hotel across the Thunder 

Bay River from the NOAA Alpena headquarters and Great Lakes Maritime Heritage 

Center had its ribbon cutting, and another hotel is in the works just down the road. 

Nearly 80,000 people visit the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center a year. On 

average, 10,000 purchase tickets to explore the shipwrecks aboard the Lady Michigan, a glass-bottom boat that seats up to 100 passengers per cruise. 

That does not include the number of boat cruises that are dedicated to education. 

More than 6,000 school children come to the center each year to experience what 

it’s like to be in the middle of a Great Lake and explore shipwrecks in the deep 

waters below them. They learn about the Great Lakes watershed, ecology, and how 

the maritime industry continues to shape the region. 

An Alpena High School teacher created an ecology class called ‘‘Shipwreck Alley.’’ 

An elementary teacher was recognized as the ‘‘2017 Michigan Science Teacher of the 

Year.’’ His students participate in TBNMS underwater robotics and micro-plastics 

programs, spending class time in the sanctuary’s makerspace and aboard the glassbottom boat. Alpena Community College now offers a Marine Technology degree 

program that works in close collaboration with the TBNMS professional divers and 

marine archaeologists. In fact, two graduates of this program now work for the sanctuary and other graduates are in high demand in the private sector. 

The long-term success and expansion of TBNMS has generated substantial interest in the region as a recreational and research destination point, helping to diversify the local economy and spur new investment in the area. From national research 

entities like the American Association of Underwater Sciences hosting its annual 

conference in Alpena this September and the Michigan State Parks expanding and 

improving adjacent park and boating facilities, to the growth in lodging, restaurants 

and recreational businesses that include cycling, paddling and diving, there is no 

doubt that the sanctuary is making a significant impact on the quality of life and 

sustainability of the region. 

To turn back the clock on this progress and the local residents, businesses, and 

educational institutions who have given so much of themselves to promote the assets of the sanctuary would be a detrimental blow to the region. The Friends of 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary wholeheartedly asks for your support in 

4 

ensuring the sanctuary retains its current designation and continues to thrive as 

a national treasure. 

Most sincerely, 

CHARLES N. WIESEN, 

Board President. 

Senator PETERS. His name is Steven Kroll. He runs a charter operation out of Rogers City, Michigan, and he urges in the letter for 

us to maintain the expansion of the Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary. In fact, in that letter, he writes, and I quote, ‘‘There has 

been a steady increase in our area of new businesses. Even where 

I live, 40 miles north of Alpena in the expanded area, empty storefront buildings are being occupied with new businesses, and we are 

seeing growth again.’’ 

The economic boom has been tremendous in my state. In 2005, 

even before there was an expansion of the sanctuary, counties surrounding the old boundaries of the sanctuary garnered $100 million 

in sales related to Thunder Bay. This generated $39 million in personal income to residents and about 1,700 jobs. 

Last year, I had the great pleasure to scuba dive on Shipwreck 

Alley, which is in Thunder Bay Sanctuary, and the cold, clear, 

fresh water preserves these shipwrecks dating back to the 19th 

century in basically pristine condition. There’s nothing like getting 

up close to them, and it’s an experience that once somebody has 

that opportunity will never forget. In fact, the one ship I dove on, 

as we were approaching it, you couldn’t see it, and then it came 

into your view, and it was like a ghost ship that had just dropped 

on the bottom of the lake. It was a miraculous vision to see. 

But you don’t have to be a certified diver to see firsthand these 

incredible pieces of American history. We have glass bottom boats 

that allow you to stay dry but still have a close-up view of these 

beautiful national treasures, some of which are only a few feet underneath the surface. 

This trove of artifacts has formed the basis for developing worldclass, historical, and archeological research programs centered 

around the sanctuary. In addition to the jobs and dollars infused 

into the local economy, Thunder Bay serves as an educational and 

historical treasure that preserves 110 known shipwrecks that document over 200 years of maritime history. Thunder Bay has been so 

successful, I’m happy to say, that now our neighbors in Wisconsin 

want a sanctuary of their own, and they have been working the 

grass roots process to make that a reality. 

But I will say it always wasn’t this way. Back in 1997, the City 

of Alpena, in fact, actually passed a referendum opposing the sanctuary, and true to the construct and intent of the Sanctuaries Act, 

NOAA did not force the sanctuary on the locals. Instead, NOAA, 

the state, the City of Alpena, and the Sanctuary Advisory Council 

came to the negotiating table, and they worked for 3 years to find 

consensus before moving forward. NOAA made changes to the regulations for Thunder Bay to make them more consistent with existing state laws. 

Then Secretary of Commerce Bill Daley was quoted as saying, 

and I quote, ‘‘The sanctuary will only succeed with the support of 

the state and the local community.’’ I think Secretary Daley was 

right, and since the 2000 designation of Thunder Bay, it has beVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
5 

come, without question, one of the crown jewels of Michigan’s tourism industry today. 

So I’m looking forward to hearing the testimony today. We have 

witnesses, like Captain Hickman, who are going through the arduous process that it takes to get it right when it comes to managing 

sanctuaries in a way that has community support. We have before 

us stakeholders, like Captain O’Brien and Mr. Weiss, who have 

concerns about possible new designations, and we have before us 

Admiral Lautenbacher, who has seen the diversity of the 13 sanctuaries that protect right now roughly about 1 percent of U.S. 

ocean waters. 

If sanctuaries are not the right fit, I want to go on the record— 

if they’re not the right fit in other places, we would like to have 

them in the Great Lakes. So we will take those sanctuaries as 

much as we can in my area. And in the same vein, the Committee 

has received also numerous letters of support for today’s hearing 

from community leaders of a variety of sanctuaries all across the 

country, and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that those letters could 

be entered into the record as well as Mr. Kroll’s letter that I referenced. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Without objection. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll turn this 

back to the Chairman and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, thank you, Senator Peters. 

I want to again thank the witnesses. I also want to give you a 

context of what’s going on with healthcare and marking up a number of bills on Armed Services. I can guarantee there’s a lot of 

member interest in this topic. Hopefully, we’re going to have other 

members here. There’s just a lot going on in the Senate this morning, and so there’s, hopefully, going to be a little bit of in and out. 

But that does not take away from our appreciation for the witnesses here, many of whom, I think it’s safe to say, traveled not 

just hours but, in some cases, days to get here. 

We have Mr. Ernest Weiss, the Natural Resources Director from 

the Aleutians East Borough in the great state of Alaska, one of my 

constituents. He has an excellent background of providing the residents of the borough—which, hopefully, Mr. Weiss will describe in 

a little bit more detail, because it’s quite a unique place in America—with representation of various fisheries, advisory and management bodies, and he assists in the development and implementation of scientific efforts and regulations and is, importantly and 

currently, a member of the Advisory Panel on the North Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council. 

Mr. Weiss, welcome. 

We also have Captain Scott Hickman, who is the Owner of Circle 

H Outfitters in Galveston, Texas, and a recipient of the National 

Marine Sanctuary Foundation Volunteer of the Year Award; Captain Jeremiah O’Brien, the past President of Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Association; and Vice Admiral Conrad 

Lautenbacher, who was the previous NOAA Administrator from 

2001 through 2008. So we have a very distinguished panel. I again 

want to welcome them. 

6 

You will each have 5 minutes to deliver an oral opening statement, and a longer written statement, if you so choose, will be included for the record. 

Why don’t we begin, sir, with you, Mr. Weiss? 

STATEMENT OF ERNEST WEISS, NATURAL RESOURCES 

DIRECTOR, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH 

Mr. WEISS. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, thank 

you for the opportunity. 

I work for the Aleutians East Borough, which is on the Alaska 

Peninsula and encompasses also the easternmost Aleutian Islands. 

Our southern coast opens to the Western Gulf of Alaska, and our 

northern shores on the Bristol Bay and the Bering Sea. Our six 

communities are dependent on access to the abundant marine resources. There are no roads connecting our communities to the rest 

of Alaska. All travel is by air or by sea. 

Our local fishermen work on these waters nearly all year round. 

Right now, they’re fishing for salmon, but later on, they’ll fish for 

cod, halibut, crab, and pollock. Our borough fishermen are regulars 

now at the management processes at the Alaska Board of Fisheries 

for state waters fisheries and the North Pacific Management Council for Fisheries in Federal waters. Both of these management bodies use excellent scientific methods and a rigorous public process. 

The North Pacific Council uses ecosystem-based management 

and has put in place substantial marine protections in Alaskan waters. Over 95 percent of the Aleutians Islands Management Area 

is closed to bottom troll to minimize impacts to the bottom and the 

essential fish habitat. Sea line protections are in place in the Arctic. Nearly 150,000 square nautical miles are closed to all fishing 

until there’s better scientific data available. There’s closures to bottom contact gear in place to protect coral gardens and other closures to troll and bottom troll to protect crab and rockfish habitats. 

The council process in the North Pacific is working to protect our 

marine resources. 

There are currently no National Marine Sanctuaries in Alaska, 

but in 2014, the nomination process was reestablished, and that 

process mandates community-based development of a nomination, 

and that’s great. Any nomination should start with the local community, but the final rule states that communities in this context 

are defined as a collection of interested individuals or groups. We 

believe that communities that are adjacent to a proposed sanctuary 

with the potential to be the most impacted should be the drivers 

of any new sanctuary nomination. 

Aleutians East Borough got involved in this process in December 

2014 when the group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, based in Washington, D.C., proposed the Aleutians Island National Marine Sanctuary, a massive 554,000 nautical square miles, an area larger than the land mass of the state 

of Alaska. It would have encompassed all the Aleutian, Pribilof, 

and Shumagin Islands, all Bristol Bay, and most of the Alaska Peninsula, engulfing our entire region. 

When the proposal was made public, letters and resolutions in 

opposition to the proposed sanctuary came pouring in from local 

tribes, communities, and other groups. I’m not aware of any local 

7 

support for the PEER proposal. In the end, the process worked, and 

in January 2015, NOAA deemed the Aleutians Island’s proposal 

not sufficient. 

In October of last year, 2016, a much smaller sanctuary, less 

than 3,000 square nautical miles, was proposed by the City of St. 

George. The proposed St. George Unangan Heritage National Marine Sanctuary would create a sanctuary 30 miles seaward from 

the island of St. George on the Pribilof Islands except toward their 

neighboring island of St. Paul to the north where the boundary 

would only extend 20 miles, and there would be a buffer zone 

around the St. George harbor to allow for development there. 

But besides the City of St. George, other local entities had mixed 

reactions, including opposition, to that proposed sanctuary. So in 

January of this year, NOAA added the St. George Sanctuary to the 

inventory of nominations for consideration, and the City of St. 

George has been outreaching to other community members to say 

that a St. George Sanctuary would not negatively impact the harbor expansion or local fisheries. 

The process to nominate National Marine Sanctuaries is a public 

process that necessarily includes local stakeholders, and that’s a 

good thing. However, the process would be strengthened by requiring initial involvement in proposal submission by local community 

groups that would be most impacted. Regional Fishery Management Councils must be consulted prior to designation, but in the 

North Pacific, the Council is already the right management authority, doing the work, supported by communities, protecting the marine environment, while providing research and educational opportunities. 

Thanks for your consideration. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weiss follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERNEST WEISS, NATURAL RESOURCES DIRECTOR, 

ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH

Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to participate in this hearing on Marine Sanctuaries: Fisheries, 

Access, the Environment and Maritime Heritage. For the record, my name is Ernest 

Weiss and I am employed as the Natural Resources Director for the Aleutians East 

Borough, in southwest Alaska. Our Borough rests on the Alaska Peninsula, the 

easternmost Aleutian Islands and the Shumagin Islands. Our southern coast opens 

to the western Gulf of Alaska, and our northern shore is on Bristol Bay and the 

Bering Sea. Our six communities of King Cove, Cold Bay, Sand Point, Akutan, False 

Pass and Nelson Lagoon are dependent on access to the abundant marine resources, 

including subsistence and commercial fishing, and our native Aleut people claim 

good stewardship of this region for thousands of years. There are roads in our communities, but there are no roads connecting our communities to each other or to the 

rest of Alaska. All travel is by air or by sea. 

Our local fishermen work on these waters nearly all year round. Right now the 

emphasis is on sockeye salmon, and later pink salmon along with other salmon will 

hopefully fill the nets. But over the year the local fleet will gear up for cod, halibut, 

crab, pollock and whatever other fishery presents itself. These local fishermen and 

other boats that deliver to our shore-based fish processing plants support state and 

local taxes and keep the local economies moving. The local people, dependent on 

these waters for generations, have become regular participants in the fishery management processes—the Alaska Board of Fisheries meetings for State-waters fisheries and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council meetings for fisheries in 

the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the State of Alaska. Both of these management bodies utilize a rigorous science-based approach, with ample opportunities for 

public input. 

8 

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) does an excellent job 

of protecting our fisheries and marine environment using an ecosystem based management approach. Working with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

the Council has put in place substantial protections in the waters off Alaska that 

provide over half of the Nation’s seafood products. Over 95 percent (277,100 nm2) 

of the Aleutian Islands Management Area is closed to bottom trawl to minimize impacts on the benthic environment and essential fish habitat. Steller sea lion protection measures prohibit trawling in some areas and all marine traffic in other areas. 

In the Arctic, 148,393 nm2 in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea are closed to all fishing, 

at least until better scientific data is available. There are closures to all bottom contact gear in place to protect coral gardens and other closures to trawl and bottom 

trawl gear to protect crab and rockfish habitat. The dynamic Council process in the 

North Pacific is working to great success. 

There are currently no National Marine Sanctuaries in Alaska, nor, I would 

argue, any need for Sanctuaries, based on the work of NMFS and the NPFMC. However, the final rule published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2014 to re-establish the Sanctuary Nomination Process opened the door for new sanctuary nominations. In theory, the Sanctuary Nomination process seems logical. The nomination 

process mandates the ‘‘community-based development of a nomination’’, and we support that concept—that any nomination should start with the local community. 

However, we feel there is a problem with the Sanctuary Nomination process definition of a ‘‘community’’. The Final Rule states: 

‘‘Communities may submit applications to have NOAA consider nominations of 

areas of the marine and Great Lakes environments as national marine sanctuaries. Communities, in this context, are defined as a collection of interested individuals or groups (e.g., a friends of group, a chamber of commerce); local, tribal, state, or national agencies; elected officials; or topic-based stakeholder 

groups, at the local, regional or national level (e.g., a local chapter of an environmental organization, a regionally-based fishing group, a national-level recreation or tourism organization, academia or science-based group, or an industry 

association).’’ 

In the Sanctuary Nomination Process, ‘‘communities’’ does not necessarily mean 

local communities. So anyone can nominate a National Marine Sanctuary, but we 

believe that local communities that are adjacent to the proposed sanctuary with the 

potential to be the most impacted should be the main drivers of any new sanctuary 

nomination or designation. The Aleutians East Borough got involved in the nomination process 6 months after the Final Rule was published, when in December 2014 

a sanctuary was nominated that actually would have engulfed our entire region. 

The Aleutian Island National Marine Sanctuary (AINMS) was proposed December 

22, 2014 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility based in Washington, DC. This massive proposed sanctuary of 554,000 nm2, larger than the land 

mass of the State of Alaska, would have encompassed all of the Aleutian, Pribilof 

and Shumagin Islands, all of Bristol Bay and most of the Alaska Peninsula. The 

Aleutians East Borough was not contacted prior to the proposal, however the Qagan 

Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point responded to a request for support by the Alaska 

Inter-Tribal Council, one week prior to the proposal submission, in staunch opposition. When the proposal was made public, letters and resolutions in opposition to 

the AINMS came pouring in from local groups and communities, including the King 

Cove Agdaagux Tribe, the City of Unalaska, the Marine Conservation Alliance, the 

Akutan Corporation, the City of Adak and the Aleutians East Borough. 

The ridiculous overreach of the proposed sanctuary made it easy for groups to oppose, and in the end, the process worked. On January 23, 2015 the Office of Marine 

Sanctuaries responded that the AINMS proposal was ‘‘not sufficient’’. And the opposition continued to be heard. In March 2015 the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference opposed the AINMS in SWAMC Resolution 15–02, and the 2015 Alaska Legislature passed Legislative Resolve 6, sponsored by the District 37 Representative 

Bryce Edgmon: 

‘‘BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature is vehemently opposed 

to the nomination by the Washington, D.C., based Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or any similar nomination, for the creation of an 

Aleutian Islands National Marine Sanctuary.’’ 

On October 1, 2016, a much smaller sanctuary, less than 3000 nm2, was proposed 

by the City of St George. The proposed St. George Unangan Heritage National Marine Sanctuary would create a sanctuary 30 miles seaward from the island of St. 

George, one of the Pribilof Islands, except towards St. Paul Island to the north, 

where the boundary would only extend 20 miles. The proposed sanctuary would also 

9 

include a buffer zone around the St. George Harbor, to allow for development and 

commerce there. 

Besides the City of St. George, other local entities have had mixed reactions to 

the proposed sanctuary around St. George. The St. George Traditional Council had 

neither supported nor opposed the proposal as of late last year. Other local groups 

have voiced opposition. The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association, the Community Development Quota (CDQ) group representing communities 

including St. George opposes the proposed sanctuary. Also the St. George Tanaq 

Corporation and the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association both oppose the proposal. 

The Alaska Federation of Natives passed Resolution 16–23 at their October 2016 

annual conference in more generic terms: 

‘‘NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the delegates of the 2016 AFN Annual Convention that AFN opposes the creation of any National Marine Sanctuary or Marine National Monument that jeopardizes the economic health and 

vitality of one or more rural communities reliant on commercial and/or subsistence fisheries in Alaska. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the delegates mandate tribal consultation 

and engagement with Alaska Native individuals and organizations that may be 

impacted prior to designating Marine National Monuments and Sanctuaries in 

Alaska.’’ 

The Aleutians East Borough remains neutral to the proposed St. George sanctuary. And while it was submitted by a local group, it appears the proposed sanctuary is not supported by a majority of local residents in the region. On January 27, 

2017 NOAA announced the addition of the St. George Unangan Heritage National 

Marine Sanctuary to the inventory of nominations for consideration. As part of an 

outreach effort at the 2017 SWAMC conference in March, William Douros, West 

Coast Regional Director of National Marine Sanctuaries, and Pat Pletnikoff, Mayor 

of City of St. George tried to assure members attending the Conference that a St. 

George Sanctuary would not negatively impact the harbor expansion or local fisheries. 

The process to nominate and ultimately designate national marine sanctuaries is 

a public process that necessarily includes local stakeholders and the regional fishery 

management councils—that is a good thing. However, the process would be 

strengthened by requiring initial involvement in proposal submission by local community groups that would be most impacted, closest to the proposed sanctuary. Regional fishery management councils must be consulted prior to designation, but in 

the North Pacific, the local fishery management council is the right management 

authority in place, already doing the work of a sanctuary. The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council is supported by the local communities, and the Council utilizes 

an effective ecosystem based process to protect and conserve the marine environment, while providing research and educational opportunities. 

The Aleutians East Borough understands that National Marine Sanctuaries have 

National significance, not just of concern to local communities. But again, we believe 

the Council is the appropriate body in place to address not only the National significance criteria, but also any management considerations. We feel the waters of the 

North Pacific are already well protected, and we view future sanctuary designation 

protections as needlessly permanent and static, and potentially harmful to the local 

economies. 

Thank you for your consideration. I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Weiss. 

Mr. Hickman. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN SCOTT HICKMAN, OWNER, 

CIRCLE H OUTFITTERS 

Mr. HICKMAN. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Sullivan, 

Ranking Member Peters, thank you for having me here today, and 

members of the Committee. 

I’m Captain Scott Hickman. I’m a 30-year professional fisherman 

in the Gulf of Mexico. I’m a volunteer—I started—I have the heart 

of a volunteer, started when I was 18 years old and I volunteered 

to serve my country in the Marine Corps. I sat on numerous adviVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
10 

sory panels for the Gulf Council, as well as serving on the Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary Council as the recreational seat. 

For centuries, in the Gulf of Mexico—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. For the record, we have a couple of Marines 

on the dais here, so we’re liking your testimony already. 

Mr. HICKMAN. Semper Fi, sirs. 

For centuries, in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, thousands of men and 

women for countless generations have responsibly and sustainably 

accessed, while wisely harvesting, the bounty of both the Gulf’s 

fisheries and our energy resources. Until just the last few years, 

the U.S. Government has practiced a proven and balanced multiple-use management policy for the America’s people’s resources in 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

Today, there are thousands of fishermen and oil rig workers offshore in Gulf of Mexico carefully and safely working to simultaneously harvest a tiny portion of the resources while responsibly 

providing the protections necessary to assure there will be plenty 

of resources for tomorrow. The non-harvestable resources are 

equally important and must be protected from over-fishing and unfortunate oil spills seen in countries around this world. 

Care comes in many forms, some from responsible regulations, 

but more from engaged stakeholders working to protect and responsibly manage resources in nationally significant places. That’s 

why I volunteered and currently serve on the Council. Many other 

fishing industry leadership roles and members do these same tasks 

day to day and work hard for these sanctuaries. 

We must select only places that are truly nationally significant 

to all of our folks in the United States. The Federal agencies 

charged with regulating and managing multi-use activities must be 

sensitive to the balance of protecting and enhancing American jobs 

in our coastal communities, just as much as protecting marine life 

from over-fishing and significant oil destruction. 

The National Marine Sanctuaries program is a critical part of 

finding that balance, but only if the stakeholders in the Gulf of 

Mexico are part of this process. That is why the National Marine 

Sanctuaries law created advisory councils of broad stakeholder 

groups for each sanctuary. For the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary, there are eight stakeholder groups represented 

on the Council, along with non-voting agency representatives, over 

20 men and women that do an amazing job of educating and listening to one another to collaborate in developing solutions. Federal 

management in the Gulf of Mexico is so much better for the dedication and commitment of these SAC members. 

In 2007, the SAC recommended a boundary expansion, now 

called Alternative 2, that is over 100 square miles smaller than the 

NOAA preferred Alternative Number 3 recommended today. The 

current SAC is working cooperatively to make an additional boundary expansion recommendation anticipated in 2017, this year. 

Sadly, we have been marginalized in the current process. 

In February 2015, the NEPA process caused the Office of National Marine Sanctuary staff to go behind closed doors to develop 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and recommendations. 

This should be amended to have SAC members involved in the 

11 

DEIS process and development. The 2007 SAC recommended the 

addition of six banks with a slight alteration of the existing three, 

but staff’s preferred alternative added six additional banks to the 

2007 recommendation with more arbitrary boundaries encompassing twice as much area, leaving many areas off limits to fishing and drilling as it is proposed. 

Interagency coordination for platforms to be reefed-in-place is 

consistently delayed, often over 2 years. When finally reefed-inplace, hopefully late this summer, High Island A–389 will be the 

first artificial reef in a National Marine Sanctuary. We are excited 

to see this platform become a success story in artificial reefing, 

home to many, many thousands of marine creatures. In my view, 

and recommended by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council, the areas known as BOEM No Activity Zones could be limits of any boundary. 

Last, I hope you will study and embrace the SAC recommendations of 2007 and 2017 and, therefore, help us make the best decisions on this expansion when the Commerce Secretary makes his 

final formal recommendation to the Congress. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. This has been a true honor 

and a humbling experience to testify before this body of the Senate. 

It would be a great honor and privilege to answer any of your questions after my statement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hickman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN SCOTT HICKMAN, OWNER, CIRCLE H OUTFITTERS

To the American Peoples’ U.S. Senators, 

I sit to serve my country here with this testimony from more than 30 years of 

professional fishing experience in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). 

For centuries in the U.S. GOM, thousands of men and women for countless generations have responsibly and sustainably accessed and wisely harvested the bounty 

of both the Gulf’s fisheries and energy resources. Until just the last few years, the 

U.S. Government has practiced a balanced, wise, proven, and time-tested policy of 

‘‘multiple use’’ management of the American people’s resources on Federal lands in 

the GOM, for the benefit of all Americans and their generations to come. Today, 

should be no different, and as I speak, there are tens of thousands of fishermen and 

oil workers offshore in the GOM right now, carefully and safely working there to 

simultaneously harvest a truly tiny portion of the resource this very day, and to act 

responsibly to provide for the protection necessary to assure that there will be plenty of resources there tomorrow. The non-harvestable resources are equally important and must certainly be protected from overfishing and oil spills, as is seen in 

other countries around the world. 

Please understand that there are two critically important systems to balance in 

the GOM. First, is the ecologic system of vibrant, flourishing, and magnificent marine life. Second, of equal importance, is an economic system of vibrant, flourishing, 

and magnificent human life. These two major systems of natural and human activity are interlinked in a delicate balance, where each can benefit and grow from the 

other, if managed wisely. Care comes in many forms—some comes from responsible 

regulations, but more care comes from engaged stakeholders working to protect and 

responsibly manage resources and nationally significant places. That’s why I volunteered and currently serve as an Advisory Council member as well as many other 

industry leadership and fishery management advisory roles. 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Program (NMSP) 

As I’ve come to learn about the National Marine Sanctuary Program by directly 

participating in it, I’ve realized that when created, it was different from what the 

word ‘‘sanctuary’’ says in the dictionary. I’m told that they wrestled with it, but 

could do no better, always concerned that it created the mindset of a marine exclusionary preserve. Rather than just creating and protecting a refuge area like a maVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
12 

rine preserve, the program law calls for multiple use to the point where it says we 

shall ‘‘improve the conservation, understanding, management, and wise and sustainable use of marine resources’’. 

Fisheries can always be a sustainable use of marine resources, and when practiced as we do in the GOM, it assures that even more resources will be present in 

future times. Petroleum production is also sort of sustainable, in that its wise and 

safe production can pave the way for more discovery and development, as petroleum 

companies drill deeper and deeper into the earth for new deeper pools that we will 

need tomorrow. Simply put, we need more platforms for fish habitat, more habitat 

for marine life attached to each leg since each platform is a top-to-bottom food 

chain, and more petroleum providing American-sourced petroleum to our people and 

economy. That petroleum also displaces some of the 40+ tankers carrying foreign 

oil that constantly ship in and out of the GOM daily, mostly from Angola, Venezuela, and the Middle East, sending trillions of dollars out of America. and increasing the risk of collisions and very large tanker spills. 

This program, as constituted under the NMSA, is supposed to embrace ALL users, 

and only restrict or exclude access in but a few nationally significant special places. 

If we allow primarily the ONMS staff to define ‘‘nationally significant’’, or interpret 

the words in the NMSA to include more and larger areas of the GOM now and in 

the future, we have lost the balance that is so essential to the program. If areas 

around proposed sites are made too large, it will be extremely difficult for traditional users to function reasonably in such doubly-regulated areas—by both the 

sanctuary and their traditional regulators. It will be difficult because they first have 

to comply with the longstanding regulatory requirements of their own oversight 

agencies, and then the supremacy of the protectionist sanctuary regulations in new 

sanctuary designated areas. This is a formula for excessive time delays and even 

stalemates, because it puts marine scientists in superior charge of the economic activity of ever increasing areas of the GOM. 

That’s not good for all of us, whether they agree or not. What they tell me is that 

what they care about most is preserving most all marine life and their habitat (unless it is living on the legs of a petroleum platform—more about that later). More 

areas seem better to them, since many personally support Alternative 5 and even 

more than that, and so the danger is that the sanctuary program and its staff become the policeman of all multiple users in more and more areas in the future. 

There are over 20,000 seafloor anomalies identified by BOEM’s interpretation of the 

oil industry’s required submission of all its seismic data, acquired over half a century, most of which have never been ground-truthed. Most will be found to be carbonate substrate upon which some marine life lives, including black corals etc., and 

many others will be chemosynthetic communities attracted and sustained by all the 

natural oil seeps, and yes, others will be deepwater corals that grow prodigiously 

in many thousands of places in the GOM, including the deep legs of petroleum platforms on the deep shelf and beyond. HI–A–389 platform next to the FGBNMS has 

quite a few bushy colonies of common black coral on its 35 year old legs, beginning 

at about 350’ down to the seafloor base at 400’, as seen by a petroleum operator’s 

ROV survey of its legs. 

Regulation over users in most areas is far better directed by the agencies that 

were created and built to do just that. NMFS, BOEM, BSEE all have rigorous environmental regulations governing all these many areas. Industry must comply with 

those, but some ‘‘take’’ is allowed. It is likely that future regulations from the 

ONMS for many areas targeted for expansion now and in the future, will be more 

severe to the point of ‘‘no-take’’ areas. Then, an agency of marine scientists who 

have their own goals and believe their goals are superior to all other stakeholders 

in the GOM will be supremely restricting the activities approved by those same industry regulatory agencies. This is a formula for eventual shutdown of industry activities in the GOM, at least as far as where most of it would otherwise take place. 

ONMS staff will argue that these current and future areas will take less than 1 

percent of the surface area of the GOM, but the petroleum industry will counter 

argue that their activities take a similar surface area of less than 1 percent, and 

many are overlapping and aligned in the same place, because the seafloor structures 

that create the banks and carbonate substrate, often are directly related to the underground geology that traps the petroleum at those same locations. Fishing locations are the same way, we fish structure created by the underlying geology too, and 

if mapped out, would probably overlay the similar 1 percent of the GOM. So, we 

are all involved with these same areas of interest. 

Simply put, if the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) seeks to override 

another agency, or ignore the needs of multiple use stakeholders and thus not work 

out differences and a compromise, then it becomes counter-productive to the future 

health and services of the GOM for everyone—nature and human alike. CollaboraVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
13 

tion toward a common goal of multiple-use can and should be the mission, and not 

exclusionary protection of increasingly larger areas of the OCS and GOM. 

So, how do we sort out these seemingly conflicting needs and viewpoints. Compromise must be achieved, and ONMS’s belief of what is ‘‘nationally significant’ is 

the big problem. For Sanctuary status, we must select only places that are truly nationally significant or ‘‘special’’ to all Americans, and not just places that marine scientists and their supporters feel are significant to them. If balance is ever lost tilting in one direction or the other, than all Americans suffer, not just the marine life 

or human life in and around the GOM. The Federal agencies charged with regulating and managing multiple-use activities have most always been sensitive to finding a balance of protecting and enhancing American jobs and coastal communities, 

just as much as protecting marine life from overfishing, oil spills, and sea bottom 

impact. 

Broadly defining that definition, as they apparently did in the DEIS by saying so 

about Alternative # 5, and ‘‘marine preserving’’ billions of individual marine life and 

habitat in the GOM with preservationist sanctuary regulations and large boundaries, is excessive. Most areas of the GOM are neither nationally significant, nor 

worthy of the supreme level of protection envisioned by Congress when they wrote 

the NMSA, yet they have the authority to declare it so. Nowadays, they need only 

a President to ultimately agree with them. Theoretically, with an environmentally 

aggressive President in office someday, the entire OCS could be declared nationally 

significant under NMSA, and most all fishing and petroleum development so restricted, it might as well be banned, There are literally no checks and balances to 

prevent this, and the American peoples’ representatives, our Congress, have only 

consultative rights, and not the right to approve or disapprove. That needs to 

change, as with the Antiquities Act too. 

Last year, the Obama Administration used the Antiquities Act to create a 5,000+ 

sq mile marine national monument in very deepwater off Cape Cod, I’m told this 

was done to avoid the multi-year sanctuary review process and create it immediately, and to go forward without ONMS management. So, now it will be administered by the Fish & Wildlife Service at DOI, and yet, it’s a marine sanctuary. I’m 

not going to comment on this decades-long debate, as to whether DOI or DOC 

should administer offshore resources alone, but this is very confusing and problematic for all the stakeholders on the OCS, especially if this is the future model. 

Boundary Expansion and the DEIS 

The 2007 SAC had recommended the addition of 6 bank area (9 total new banks) 

with slight alterations of the existing 3 banks; but, NMSP staff’s Preferred Alternative (#3) added 6 additional banks in 3 new bank areas to the 2007 recommendation drawn. Those 3 new bank areas were drawn with much larger and more arbitrary boundaries. As a result, we found that many key national economic interest 

areas might not be drilled or even possibly fished someday, if left as large and as 

many as they proposed. Already, one petroleum company has relinquished a lease 

one of the new Alternative # 3 added areas, in reaction to last June’s announcement 

arbitrarily including their entire lease, with more than half the sea bottom a mud 

flat, not nationally significant sea floor. They tell me that they believe it to contain 

a giant oilfield of over 100 million barrels of oil equivalent. Their geoscientists believe many of these bank-covered salt domes contain similar deep giant fields of petroleum yet to be drilled and discovered. Most of the 12–18 dome flanks have never 

been drilled below 10,000′, yet new state-of-the art seismic technology is allowing 

companies to see more clearly down to 20–30,000′, where apparently very giant potential may exist for our country. 

The biggest problems derive from their desire to include deep flanks of the banks, 

in over 275′ of water (below BOEM NAZ 85m cutoff), where BOEM for decades has 

prescribed as the depth needing protection from petroleum activities. The areas 

above that depth on the banks are known as ‘‘No Activity Zones’’ (NAZ). Now, 

NMSP wants to include much more than the BOEM NAZ areas by including broad 

flanks in the sanctuary expansion. With the often flattening of the elevation past 

this NAZ depth, it creates larger and larger areas to be included in their regulatory 

boundaries. It is a simple fact, that their regulation is now missioned to greatly restrict, and/or prohibit, economic activities in these larger bank areas, beyond the 

BOEM–BSEE NAZ areas, which is problematic for petroleum explorers and fisherman alike. 

The DEIS is a massive document, with staff and many adjunct non-NMSP marine 

scientist researchers’ wishes included therein. In fact, by the DEIS stating that 

these excessive Alternative 4 & 5 areas nationally significant, it is essentially now 

advocating for eventual NMSP protection, and thus against most economic stakeholder groups continuing to have traditional and normal access to nearly 50 sites 

14 

on both the shelf and slope offshore Louisiana, Texas, and MAFLA. This is an unacceptable escalation of marine preserve-style marine governance, and might have 

been prevented if the stakeholders had been involved with the formulation of the 

DEIS. Of course, they were not included due to NEPA. 

Today’s DEIS excessive Alternative 5 option, quickly becomes the next goal for the 

staff stakeholders, regardless of threats to livelihoods and multiple use needs of 

other stakeholders. It can be an ever escalating spiral, unless a narrowly strong 

‘‘bulwark’’ definition of ‘‘national significance’’ is set in laws written by the peoples’ 

Congress & President, and not the marine scientist stakeholder group. The NMSA 

wording needs more protection for economic interests in areas targeted by staff for 

future sanctuary designation. Their local budgets, projects, conference paper presentations, awards, professional standing, and even future promotions & compensation 

all seem enhanced by staff recommending ever increasing areas of heavily restricted 

or even closed marine preserve-like areas. 

I’m old enough to remember that long before there was NMSA jurisdiction, and 

regulation from even the existing agencies that we have today, there were men and 

women throughout time that came together, much like we do on the SAC, and find 

common ground to solve the land access and land use challenges in the GOM before 

us. That is what we are all about—finding solutions where optimal results are produced for marine and human life together, because we are all linked together as one 

eco-system—both ecologic and economic. 

Resource harvesting from the GOM should continue in almost all areas, but not 

in those that are truly nationally significant. Restraining the marine scientists’ excessive boundary expansion and their likely near-impossible regulations to access 

these areas is essential to prevent growing environmental land access elimination 

for ALL the other multi-users across the GOM in the years ahead. Recreational and 

commercial fishing, petroleum development, and even shipping, can co-exist being 

regulated by their current Federal regulators, and not by the ONMS staff. Sanctuary areas need to be contained to only what is truly of ‘‘national significance’’, and 

not just wish lists from marine scientists. Sadly, NOAA states on page 3–12 of the 

DEIS ‘‘Both public scoping for this DEIS and NOAA’s internal and cooperating 

agency consultations identified the included sites as nationally significant’’. Where 

will this end? Nearly 50 sites are supposedly nationally significant under Alternative #5. How many more thousands will meet such a low standard if a new 

greener Administration comes into office someday? If that day comes, will the GOM 

shelf and slope be accessible for petroleum development, fishing, shipping, and other 

common uses today? Most all areas of seafloor topography have benthic & pelagic 

marine life, fishing and underlying petroleum development potential, because the 

structures are caused by earth movements and natural features, which attract all. 

Clearly, this broken NEPA process that produced this one-sided DEIS, should be 

amended to at least have SAC members involved in future DEIS development as 

full partners with staff, and not let the taxpayer funded staff expend their staff time 

and resources without collaboration with all the other stakeholders than just themselves. NEPA gives the staff an unfair advantage in proffering their desires into 

one-sided taxpayer funded work and documents by excluding all SAC members and 

their stakeholder groups, and yet still including all other marine and even some 

non-marine scientists in primarily government and even academia. For stakeholders 

to produce an alternative DEIS document would take excessive time and funding 

on their own. Even now, the process of SAC involvement in the Final environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) is not clear. We seem to have no more ‘‘say’’ than the general public, since staff does not have to accept any of our recommendations at all. 

In the hands of an exclusionary, environmental-only focused future Administration, 

not even Congress could stop this expansion or any future expansions, under current law. This too needs to be amended in the NMSA. All future expansions of any 

kind must be approved by both the Senate and the House, and be signed into law 

by the President. Only then, will staff not be almost totally in control of future expansions, and the size and regulations of any new areas. It’s almost a blank check 

for them to expand as they desire, without Congress’s ability to stop it. With 14 

Sanctuaries off all U.S. coasts, every future addition to any Sanctuary could be easily called simply an expansion, and not require House and Senate approval. Under 

the NMSA now, the House and Senate committees have only 45 days to advise the 

Administration. So-called ‘‘Administrative Expansion’’ and regular expansion should 

be required to go through the full House and Senate from now on. 

Designating OCS lands as sanctuaries, with all the significant restrictions that 

typically then occur, could be as bad as the arbitrary designations of National 

Monuments under the Antiquities Act. Even the ‘‘Hutchinson Amendment’’ to the 

NMSA (Sec. 304 (f)—page 8) added in 2000, to put budgetary control on any future 

expansions, has not precluded the ‘‘Administrative Expansion’’ of very large areas 

15 

on the OCS during the recent Administration. How is that possible, when the Sanctuary budget hardly ever grows? Even in this DEIS, it declares no budgetary resources are needed for it to expand the 9–15 new banks it would add under Alt 2 

or 3. It is hard to understand how this is possible, when they acknowledge that Alternative 4 & 5 would require more resources, but were included in the DEIS as 

alternatives because they are supposedly ‘‘nationally significant’’. The Hutchinson 

Amendment to the 2000 revision may be causing them to state this, but is it really 

having the desired effect it was intended to do. I cannot answer that, because I was 

not part of its passage in 2000, but it was seemingly intended to restrict new sanctuaries and expansions until they have the budgets to pay for them, which it does 

not seem as though it achieved. The Sanctuary program does receive additional financial funding from the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, which is often a 

designated recipient by U.S. courts that decide a marine law violator must pay 

fines, which sometimes go to the NMSF as recipient, who in turn contributes to 

ONMS projects of various kinds. Transfer of the resources to ONMS-involved 

projects somehow occurs, but the point is that there is supplemental funding assisting the ONMS to do items that might otherwise have been budget requests of Congress and the Administration. 

Trying to get approvals on a timely basis from Sanctuary staff and Corp of Engineers staff for the current project to reef-in-place the A–389 platform has been repeatedly delayed, now running over 2 years. The Rigs-to-Reefs program is floundering with industry non-participation, because the economic incentives are destroyed by regulatory permitting delays and restrictions for reefing. Nearly 2,000 artificial reef platforms have been removed and destroyed in the last 25 years, and 

the loss of marine habitat is monumental and is actually horrific. Billions of living 

marine creatures living on the removed platforms were lifted to the surface on 

barges and taken ashore to scrap yards left to die out of water in the on land. The 

bureaucracy of the R2R program needs to change, lest we lose nearly all remaining 

2,100+ producing petroleum platforms similarly to the scrap yard. We need the continued multiple use of these impressive marine habitat areas now, more than ever. 

After years of permitting delays, we are just now seeing the potential decommissioning of a petroleum platform near the East Flower Garden Bank, within the 

sanctuary. It stands as a testament to every platform in the GOM, as tremendous 

marine life habitat, of all kinds. When finally reefed-in-place, hopefully late this 

summer, it will be the first artificial reef in a national marine sanctuary. We are 

excited to see the HI–A–389 platform become a reef-in-place artificial reef, home to 

many thousands of marine creatures. However, it may be the last ever. More on 

that in a moment. 

Petroleum leasing of all sanctuary designated areas must continue to be allowed 

as well; since as the salt domes push up thru the earth, they trap petroleum reserves at high angles on their flanks. Sometimes, like a donut around a donut hole, 

billion and billions of gallons in size. Considering the U.S. consumes 840 million gallons of oil per day, and thus about 300 billion gallons per year, with the rest of the 

world consuming 4.5 times that or 1.3 trillion gallons of crude oil per year, we might 

want to preserve drilling access to all these GOM areas basin wide, so as to provide 

American-sourced petroleum to our people and our economy. Especially if these 

banks are 12–18 of the hundreds of banks and commonly black coral ridges seen 

in the ever increasing deeper water to the south. We don’t want to set precedents 

for exclusionary policies and regulations here, that a future enviro-extreme Administration might try and extend to this bountiful multiple resource area of the GOM. 

Certainly, there are many extremists in the environmental movement that want to 

stop fishing and petroleum production in the GOM, but the American people don’t 

want their GOM turned into the private aquarium of government, academia, and 

open just to marine science researchers. That wouldn’t be prudent, as one President 

used to say. 

Critical Definition of National Significance 

Clearly, much of today’s debate hinges on what is truly ‘‘nationally significant’’, 

as stated in the NMSA by Congress, as the main criteria to be considered for National Marine Sanctuary designation. Now consider, the inferred definition there is 

ill-defined at best. Certainly a typically environmentalist definition would include 

every living marine creature in the GOM, but if that is the definition, then we 

would turn the GOM into a limited-human access environmental aquarium, where 

humans might visit but never access any land or water for any length of time. 

A more reasoned and balanced definition would indeed take into account all the 

‘‘natural resources’’ i.e., coral, oil, gas, fish, birds, plankton, algae, chemosynthetic 

communities, etc., BUT equally, their ‘‘socioeconomic importance’’. This is where the 

rubber hits the road, so to speak, and what just does not compute with the marine 

16 

science researchers. With their government paychecks and pensions, they are more 

insulated from the need to make a living, and certainly as a fisherman, petroleum 

developers. And shipping company. It is one thing to preserve, protect, and defend 

every marine and non-marine creature in or on the GOM, when there are trillions 

of individual creatures there. Commonality is a perspective that is too often lost on 

those that fight to protect just the marine environment. No one, especially the fishermen and oilmen that I know, want to plunder and spoil the natural environment 

of the GOM. In fact, many of us also want to both protect and improve on what 

God has provided, by wisely managing the resources sustainably. Excluding the 

multiple users of the GOM goes too far. 

Keep in mind, the GOM is constantly evolving and changing throughout time. You 

can never keep it the way it is today. Mother Nature above all else, won’t allow it. 

My geologist friends often remind me that sea level was 300 feet lower than today 

just about 10–15,000 years ago. Massive glacial ice sheets were as far south as Kentucky, and these 150′–350′ deep banks 100 miles offshore today were shallow islands just offshore of the coastline at the time of their flourishing growth, now most 

all drowned by real rising sea level of hundreds of feet. Some kept up with the massive rise in sea-level for a while, and are between 150–250′ deep today, but only the 

two Flower Garden Banks at 65′ today, rose fast enough to keep a great big coral 

colony on the 200+ acre coral cap. Now that’s climate change in a natural way. 

So in the end, what should we decide is nationally significant? It is easy for environmentalists to say that every coral colony, chemosynthetic community, and carbonate substrate on the bottom is precious and should be protected. Interestingly, 

the chemosynthetic communities feed on the massive natural oil seeps of the GOM, 

which according to the National Academy of Science 2003 report, I’m told they 

produce from 84,000–420,000 gallons per day, which is about 5–20 percent of the 

BP blowout every day. That’s why the chemosynthetic communities exist and are 

there. 

The National Academy of Science published that lower estimate in 2003, that 

roughly the many hundreds of natural oil seeps just south of these banks. In fact, 

during the past 50 years, the oil industry has submitted over 250,000 sq km of seismic data to BOEM. BOEM’s geophysicist teams have performed an invaluable 

seafloor seismic interpretation of all that industry seismic data, showing most of the 

possible carbonate substrate, coral areas, and chemosynthetic community areas on 

the seafloor in the GOM. In the areas just south of these banks on the 100 mile 

north-south long slope, where most deepwater drilling is taking place today, they 

have mapped nearly 20,000 probable individual sites of deepwater carbonate substrate, black or white (lophelia) coral and chemosynthetic communities, where marine life flourishes, including around all the hundreds of natural oil seeps. 

Are all of these marine life occurrences of national significance, deserving sanctuary protection today or in the future? Policies and criteria determined to draw expansion lines and regulations today for the 12 or 18 drowned coral banks proposed 

in Alt 2–3 of the DEIS, will set precedent for future expansion to possibly include 

some more of the those 20,000 seafloor seismic anomalies, that are undoubtedly carbonate substrate, coral and carbonate-oil seep communities. So which of these 

20,000 deserve exclusionary protection from man harvesting of natural resources— 

both fishing and petroleum, around them? Or, can fishing and petroleum resources 

be harvested without much damage to the environment? BOEM, BSEE, and NMFS 

obviously believe they can handle the regulatory job of environmental protection 

without eventual ONMS designations of all these areas. 

Of course, they can. That is why the exclusionary Sanctuary designation is only 

necessary for the most unique and endangered resource areas. For what is truly nationally significant! We have many laws (ESA) to protect those endangered of extinction already too, but we must not misuse the NMSA and its nationally significant designation to close large areas of land that have marine creatures by the millions and perhaps some have billions spread across the GOM. Sanctuary designation 

should be special and unique, not broadly brushed or spread widely, especially in 

the GOM where humans need its sustenance resources of fish and petroleum. 

With the current moratoriums on petroleum drilling everywhere else around 90 

percent of the U.S. continental shelf, and this area being the most prolific of them 

all, producing about 25 percent of U.S. oil production and 10+ percent of U.S. gas 

production, we must find a better balance than this DEIS, only protecting what is 

truly unique by placing it in a sanctuary. That does not include all marine life that 

are found broadly and commonly in the GOM. It defeats the purpose of having a 

marine sanctuary program, as if every tract of onshore land was worthy of being 

a national park, because wildlife life lives on it. Sanctuary management is a severe 

and restrictive regulatory regime, no matter what the ONMS staff may suggest. 

17 

They are marine biologists first, and have little interest patience in regulating and 

permitting fishing and petroleum. 

HI–A–389 Petroleum Platform Reef-in-Place (The First (and maybe last) in 

a Sanctuary) 

Today, after years of planning and permitting delays, we are only just now seeing 

the potential decommissioning of a petroleum platform just 8,000’ away from the 

coral cap of the East Flower Garden Bank, within the FGBNMS. Set down on the 

seafloor in 1981, 10 years before the Sanctuary was designated, it stands as a testament to every platform in the GOM, as tremendous marine life habitat, of all kinds. 

When finally reefed-in-place later this summer, if the FGBNMS and BSEE can finally finish their paperwork, it will be a first—a magnificent artificial reef in a national marine sanctuary. Sadly, some in NOAA and its ONMS already look negatively upon this spectacular 65′-400′ reef, because it is man-made and not natural. 

They would prefer it not be allowed to stay in the Sanctuary, and some even would 

prefer that all the marine life built up over 35 years on its legs be destroyed in a 

scrap yard onshore, because it is not worthy enough to live, having been born and/ 

or made this platform their home. And they call themselves environmentalists, conservationists, and protectors of marine life. It makes no sense when they talk like 

that. It shows a complete bias and lack of objectivity, and despite their opposition, 

most of us on the SAC are excited to see the HI–A–389 platform finally become a 

reef-in-place petroleum platform artificial reef, home to many thousands of marine 

creatures. What a great manmade success story supporting a growing and healthy 

marine ecosystem. A true giant vector of marine life, and not just a few invasive 

species. Once again, balance has been achieved by sound minds collaborating between all stakeholders, even the somewhat reluctant staff. 

With 2,100+ petroleum platforms of 4 legs or larger still remaining in the GOM 

forming their own artificial reefs with amazing and highly prolific fish habitat, let 

alone producing American petroleum for Americans to consume, I am a strong advocate for creating more fish habitat platforms like these, by drilling for new oil & 

gas. My geologist friends tell me that these areas under consideration for boundary 

expansion are all major salt domes under the drowned banks on the seafloor. Those 

salt domes, like all salt domes, are where giant fields of petroleum are found. Interestingly, most all of these considered for expansion have never been drilled below 

10,000′ and my they tell me that when drilled deeper to as deep as 30,000′, new 

giant fields will inevitably be discovered around these banks, thanks to new seismic 

and drilling technology. So, in addition to new fish habitat being created when a 

new platform goes in after a discovery well is drilled, trillions of gallons of American 

oil & gas will likely be found around these domes, displacing foreign oil tankers in 

the GOM, as new seismic technology developed only recently, shows them where to 

drill. This is where the boundary line criteria really gets critical. BSEE already has 

reasonable bank areas over these bank-domes prohibited from drilling. These areas 

are truly the marine life concentrated areas down to almost 300′ of water depth, 

that could be included in any sanctuary designation. The oil industry is not allowed 

by BOEM to drill in these areas now and we fisherman are already regulated in 

those areas by NMFS. 

No Activity Zones (NAZ) 

In my view, and the view of many fisherman and oil industry people, those areas, 

known as BOEM–BSEE’s ‘‘No Activity Zones’’ (NAZs), could easily be the limits of 

any boundary expansion. Sure, there are probably many thousands of marine creatures farther down the flattening low sloping flanks of the bank-domes to the surrounding seafloor at 400+ feet, but because the slope quickly flattens from 300’ to 

400’+ feet, any sanctuary designation would take up twice or more as much land 

area, as just the BOEM–BSEE drilling prohibited NAZ areas. 

My understanding is that new technologies of synthetic olefin-based more biodegradable drilling mud fluids, make the mud cuttings shunting requirements optimal to protect the areas in the adjoining NAZ zones, should any rig need to drill 

within 100 feet of the boundary. This is a dramatic improvement over the days of 

drilling mud clay plumes drifting suspended in the water column from the rig covering marine creatures with a light film below, out a thousand feet or so from the 

rig. Of course, the longstanding earth-mud cuttings shunting technique and regulations to shunt, greatly reduced volumes of earth-mud cuttings in the water column, 

and will continue to be applied to minimize and/or prevent most any negative effect 

within the NAZ’s. Fishing and petroleum development can easily continue to co-exist 

with the marine life on and surrounding these banks, and leasing must continue 

so limited directional drilling can be applied, when necessary . 

18 

As to how we got to where we are today, with conflicting and polarized viewpoints 

on what to do for expansion? Clearly, the NEPA process that brought us to this 

point is broken in two ways. First, it is broken by not including the SAC in the process of preparing the DEIS, while staff called many university and government marine scientist around the GOM and invited their suggestions for areas to include in 

the sanctuary boundary expansion. That was NOT fair! It became a big academic 

and government wish list, with commercial stakeholders shut out. In fishing, we call 

that a ‘‘feeding frenzy’’, which is why Alternative 5 ballooned to almost 50 sites over 

935 sq miles, nearly 20 times the size of the current sanctuary, which is an excessive number, and especially from the original 2007 SAC recommendation of just 220 

sq miles more than present 56 sq miles. Secondly, the NEPA process is additionally 

flawed because it encourages wild and expansive Alternatives to be published and 

targeted with extreme boundaries and sizes—whether adding 50 sites in one extreme in Alt 5, or no expansion in Alt 1. What real value is that—unless you want 

to create political pressure to go for it all or none at all. It runs contrary to finding 

compromise by creating an environment where polarizing extremists thrive, and discussions toward balance are definitely hurt. This NEPA process is every extremists’ 

dream policy, where every possible extreme proposal can get attention, consideration, and forced on traditional multiple use stakeholders. In a word, it ‘‘stinks’’, like 

a box of spoiled fish, and needs to be thrown out. Please cut it back to no more than 

three alternatives with no more than say a 25 percent differential between all three. 

There need to be numerical sq. mile limits on expansion land increases, and most 

of all, true Congressional and Presidential approval before it can happen. This law 

needs to be changed, and changed asap, so these problems are not replicated in future sanctuary processes. The sanctuary program deserves better, the stakeholders 

deserve better, and the staff needs to be constrained so their needs are more appropriately included as just another stakeholder. Amending NEPA is where it begins, 

and now please. 

The Rigs to Reefs Program—Future Savior of the Sanctuary? 

Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not mention another immediate crisis to 

our fishing industry that the sanctuary program is sadly only slightly involved with 

(via that soon-to-be reefed-in-place HI–A–389 platform). There is a far greater problem growing daily on the GOM OCS, where current laws and regulations regarding 

petroleum platform decommissioning are inadequate. Long term, unless most of the 

remaining 2,100+ 4-legged (or larger) petroleum platforms are left in place, the 

heightened fishing pressure on all natural seafloor topography/habitat, including all 

the banks of the FGBNMS, and those in this expansion and future ones, will rise 

rapidly and significantly over time. In fact, it’s already taking place. Our SAC recently took public comment from fisherman based on the Mississippi River Delta, 

that they were now fishing 50 percent of their time on the far western banks proposed in this expansion. The reason—over the last 5 years, they’ve seen the removal 

of many of their prime fishing petroleum platforms off the Delta, as required of the 

petroleum companies under Federal platform decommissioning regulations. Thus, a 

new balance of regulation and facilitation on the Rigs-to-Reef (R2R) program must 

also be found, concurrently with what is nationally significant in the NMSP. We 

need these platforms as artificial reefs to remain in place for decades more, lest the 

Gulf become a barren mud flat again across its shelf, with marine life migrating 

to only the two dozen or so banks. We need an immediate declaration that all platform ‘‘jackets’’ in water depths greater than 85′, shall be allowed to remain in place 

when finished producing, with rapid permitting and approvals (which we do not 

have now). The Coast Guard should still require that they be cut off at 85′ for navigation protection, but no more platforms in more than 85′ of water should be removed. Not a single one, if possible please. 

When these platforms are decommissioned to scrapyards onshore, the marine life 

is killed, only because they were born and lived on a petroleum platform. Where is 

the outrage all the marine scientists around the GOM? They simply don’t appear 

to care, since all the marine life lived on a manmade object. Is being politically correct more important than saving millions of precious marine creatures attached to 

the platforms, who simply call it their home? Recently, when asked by a petroleum 

industry (API) committee about this, a ONMS staff member stated that many marine scientists believe the platforms are nothing more than ‘‘vectors for invasive species’’, and thus characterized them negatively. From this fishermen’s standpoint, 

they are ‘‘vectors of substantial fish and marine life habitat and economic necessity’’, 

whose loss will damage the GOM fisheries immeasurably if removed. 

Simply put, we need more decommission petroleum platforms to stay in place for 

fish habitat, thereby providing more habitat for all marine creatures on the GOM 

food chain, We have a crisis of historic proportions that NOAA and its ONMS and 

19 

NMFS are seemingly not interested in stopping. Every platform is a unique ecosystem in its own right like a neighborhood or city, a ‘‘Tower of Marine Life’’ and 

‘‘Ocean Oasis’’ for millions of individual marine creatures. Most all of whom are destroyed when it is moved to shore or a designated centralized location near edge of 

the Louisiana shelf. The old Louisiana program to have the petroleum companies 

incur the removal and moving costs to move them to 8 deep shelf planning area 

sites all across the shelf at roughly 350′ of water depth kills almost all of the marine 

life moved there, that lived on the legs above that depth. It’s almost as bad as taking them to shore and scrapping them, except that new deep shelf pelagic fish do 

habitate there, and deepwater benthic platform-attaching creatures get a new home. 

Thankfully, Louisiana is now more supportive of Reefing-in-Place. Texas’s approach, 

by encouraging and allowing the reefing-in-place of the entire underwater platform 

jacket for many years (cut off 85′ below the surface for ship hull navigation avoidance), has produced many dozens of platform reefs-in-place. Ideally, the tower of 

total bottom-to-top life from 0–400+′ would be allowed to survive, but you’d need 

some insured entity to administer the quickly decaying surface platform structure, 

so it’s not practical to keep the above water portion, nor the jacket down to the 85′ 

depth for navigation clearance. 

So, ideally, I would have hoped that the ONMS would have advocated and promoted the idea for the states and they to partner to preserve and maintain the underwater platform jackets after production has depleted, but they have never shown 

any real interest. 

So, BSEE and BOEM and the Corps of engineers (COE) need to learn to move 

twice or three times as fast to approve them, since the current process of submission 

and multiple bureaucratic reviews for reef-in-place permits, quickly becomes uneconomic for petroleum companies to delay quicker removal. Every year of delay costs 

the companies over $100,000 and more in operating costs, and subject to BSEE’s inspection ‘‘inks’’ that often cite them for not highly maintaining a platform. With no 

revenue from production anymore, just large maintenance costs are incurred while 

potentially waiting years for Rigs-to-Reef approvals. 

Many fisherman agree with me that Rigs to Reef (R2R) of any kind should not 

take a day longer than permitting a platform for removal. You might even temporarily provide more incentive for the petroleum companies to hassle with the special 

paperwork and current delays for R2R until improved, by changing the 50–50 percent split on cost savings between the State and the Operator removing the platform 

for Reef-in-Place only. It should be raised temporarily to 66 percent operator-34 percent state, in order to help pay for the cost to maintain a non-revenue producing 

platform, until the permitting time can be made equivalent to removal. In short, we 

could save a tremendous amount of marine life habitat, if we simply managed the 

decommissioning of the platforms more wisely. 

Sadly, without relief on the Decomm timing regulations, and the conversion of 95 

percent of the 200+ Decomm platforms lost to the scrap yards every year, another 

1,000 out of the 2,500 platforms will likely be gone over just the next 5–7 years. 

1,000 were lost in the last 5 years (see BSEE table below). 15 years from now, 90 

percent of all remaining today could potentially be gone, and the fishing pressure 

put on these 12–18 sanctuary banks in Alternatives 2–3 off the shelf will be tremendous. The potentially significant reduction of GOM pelagic fishing will be huge and 

potentially devastating to both the fishery and the fishermen. Please do something 

to protect these platforms from removal, whether the ONMS considers them unworthy of protection or not. 

Here are the numbers per my SAC Chair’s queries of BSEE: 

Year Installed Decommissioned Standing 

2012 10 286 2814 

2013 17 223 2608 

2014 21 203 2426 

2015 4 128 2302 

2016 2 189 2115 

Per BSEE June 2017 communication e-mail (BSEE D. Peter to SAC Chair C. Moore). 

Additionally, trying to get approvals on a timely basis from Sanctuary and Corp 

of Engineers marine science staff preparing the environmental assessments (EA) for 

the current reefing-in-place of the HI–A–389 platform has been repeatedly delayed 

by their painful slowness and mistakes, now running well over 2 years. The entire 

Rigs-to-Reef program is falling short with petroleum industry non-participation, because the economic incentives are limited and often even flipped negatively against 

donors by all the regulatory steps required to R2R a depleted field platform versus 

just removing it to the scrap yards onshore. 

20 

I cannot emphasize this enough—over 1,000 artificial reef platforms have been destroyed in the last 5 years alone, and the loss of marine habitat is horrible and bordering on highly destructive of the environment. Probably billions of living marine 

creatures living on the removed platforms were lifted up to the surface on barges, 

taken ashore to scrap yards, and left to die in the scrap yards. 

In 1995, San Pedro California banned future scrapping operations of platforms in 

their harbor, because it took 3 months for the citywide stench from just three Chevron platforms removed there to decay and dissipate. The bureaucracy of the R2R 

program needs to change too, lest we lose most all remaining 2,100+ producing petroleum platforms to the scrap yard, because of more bureaucracy for R2R. If not 

abated, that will destroy more essential fish habitat (EFH), let alone millions of marine creatures that call those platforms home, that currently help sustain our current and future fisheries. 

Again, I repeat, we’ve lost over 1,000 in the last 5 years, and 2,000 in the last 

20 years, and we can’t afford to lose the remaining 2,100 over the next 20 years, 

let alone another 1,000 in the next 5 years. Please do something about this marine 

life holocaust. 

Finale 

As to the FGBNMS Boundary Expansion, we need the continued multiple use of 

these marine areas more than ever, not more marine protected reserves for the exclusionary use of government, academic, and enviro-ngo researchers. We have all 

survived and thrived together in these areas under existing regulation for decades, 

where 1) BSEE–BOEM regulates petroleum, 2) NMFS and its Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC) regulates fisheries, and 3) NOAA et al’s marine research continues just fine, without broad big areas of exclusionary marine research-only zones. 

Congress can lead on this, as can the new Administration, by amending the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the NEPA, and getting BSEE–BOEM–COE to encourage and quickly pre-permit all the platforms over 85′ water depth as Reefs-inPlace opportunities. Most of all, we need clear direction from the new Congress and 

the new Administration, as to how they can grow the biomass of the GOM to a 

healthier level without roping off significant areas as marine sanctuaries. We must 

avoid the extreme endpoints and views, where nothing is protected or everything is 

protected. National Significance designation needs to be protected too—protected so 

it really means something and not just the desires of marine scientists (God bless 

them), who mean well but naturally tend to try and ignore the economic needs of 

their fellow Americans. All can flourish, and without over regulation. We can do 

this, if the new Congress and the new Administration first has the will, and then 

the skill and fortitude to rewrite and implement the laws above, and implement policy quickly. As we Marines love to say, Semper Fi! Let’s be prepared to move forward with the right decisions that benefit the GOM and all of its future generations—both human and marine life. Move Forward Everyone! 

Lastly, I hope you will study and embrace both the SAC recommendations of 2007 

and 2018, and thereby help us help you make the best decisions on boundary expansion, when the President and his Commerce Secretary make his final formal recommendation to the Congress. We think our two recommendations, about 10 years 

apart, will be a more balanced and optimal solution than NOAA ONMS staff has 

proposed, and we’re most of all, very proud of the way we arrived at it in 2007, and 

will arrive at it later this year—through collaboration, and consensus building 

among all stakeholders, who represent all the American people around the GOM. 

Thank you so much for inviting me to testify in-person, and provide written testimony. This has been an honor and a humbling experience to testify before our U.S. 

Senate. It would be both a great honor and a privilege to answer any more of your 

questions. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Captain Hickman, and the Ranking Member, who is a Navy veteran, reminded me that the Marines 

are a part of the department of the Navy. So I’m just going to include that for the record here, trying to be bipartisan and show 

inter-service respect. 

Our next witness is Captain O’Brien. 

Sir, you have the floor. 

21 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JEREMIAH O’BRIEN, 

FORMER PRESIDENT, MORRO BAY COMMERCIAL 

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Well, I’m an Army man, so I’ll probably only get 

3 minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Chairman Sullivan, members of the Subcommittee, 

thanks very much for the privilege of being here today. 

My name is Jeremiah O’Brien. My home port is Morro Bay, California. I’m currently the Vice President of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization. I’m on the Board of Directors of the 

Morro Bay Community Fund, and I am a member of the Harbor 

Advisory Board in the City of Morro Bay, and also a 37-year commercial fisherman. 

For the general public, who only see sanctuaries as helping to 

preserve ocean health, but who have little knowledge of sanctuary 

management actions, sanctuaries are a positive, and there is high 

support. To their credit, sanctuaries are good at inspiring care of 

the ocean, a worthwhile goal. 

However, for those who are engaged directly with sanctuary 

managers over the resource management, sanctuaries have a 

mixed scorecard, at best. By their actions, sanctuaries have created 

a difficult relationship with recreational and commercial fishermen, 

in particular. 

Difficulties arise from the lack of clarity between the MagnusonStevens Conservation and Fisheries Management Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, both of which allow for the creation 

of fishing regulations. For sanctuaries, this power has emboldened 

them, particularly over habitat issues. For fishermen and fishery 

managers, the fact that sanctuaries can overrule the Regional Fishery Management Councils, with eight National Standards serving 

as the Council’s guide, is disconcerting and not in the best interest 

of ocean health. 

Sanctuaries, on the other hand, have weak science capabilities 

and a poor, self-serving public process. On what basis will a sanctuary overrule the science-based management of a Regional Management Council is a question that we always have. I hope that 

Congress will make it clear that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the 

Nation’s law for fisheries and habitat management. 

Another major problem are the interpretations by sanctuary program leaders—and I’m going to throw this in off script—that I’ve 

heard testimony from various people who are having significant 

success with their sanctuaries, but that doesn’t mean that each and 

every one carry the same management practices. So, in this case, 

we are not having success. 

Another major problem are the interpretations by sanctuary program leaders of the terms, sanctuary and protection, interpreted to 

mean steadily limiting human uses of the marine resources. One 

only needs to look to the charter for the Sanctuaries’ Advisory 

Councils, mandated for use by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, to see how the bent toward the preservation, not the conservation, of resources occurs. 

The lean toward preservation directly caused the Monterey and 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries to lead efforts to creVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
22 

ate no-fishing zones, when we were promised that wouldn’t happen, 

taking the finest fishing grounds away from historic users. Sanctuary managers are so driven to limit human uses that they violated the principles of ecosystem-based management, as well as the 

Sanctuaries Act to provide for comprehensive and coordinated management. They ignored our safety at sea concerns, the effects of displacing fishing efforts, and they refused to consider other fishing 

and habitat regulations, as the no-fishing zones were proposed. 

Fisheries in California are currently managed by the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and for state fisheries, our Department of Fish and Wildlife. It 

seems that many NGOs, with their own agendas, already seek to 

go around our normal fisheries management, and if we add sanctuaries as yet another entity with regulatory powers to contend 

with, how will it be possible for us to do business or attract others 

into our business? So sanctuaries only bring their values to the 

table, and not science values. 

In California we have four National Marine Sanctuaries, with 

two more being proposed. Despite their original Designation Documents, each one has areas closed to fishing because of sanctuary 

efforts. Commercial fishermen wonder, is it really the intention of 

Congress that over 12,000 square miles of the California coast, 

with another 5,000 proposed, be deemed of sanctuary importance? 

What is so special if everything on the coast is special? 

Finally, there is the issue of trust. Sanctuary managers have cast 

aside the good will of the recreational and commercial fishing communities by violating the promises made to us by NOAA officials 

and elected leaders that sanctuaries will not threaten our livelihoods. Through years of cherry-picked science, a lack of transparency, and favoring a preservationist and inaccurate interpretation of the Sanctuaries Act, fishermen have rationally concluded 

that sanctuaries are not to be trusted. 

Sanctuary management actions have economically harmed the 

commercial and sanctuary management actions have economically 

harmed the commercial and recreational fishing industries. In my 

home port area, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary led 

an effort that closed almost half of our best fishing grounds in state 

waters. This is why proposals for new or expanded sanctuaries are 

being vigorously opposed by fishermen and anglers. The actions of 

the sanctuaries are not helping U.S. Commerce Secretary Ross in 

meeting his goal of reducing the Nation’s dependence on imported 

seafood. 

Chairman Sullivan and members of the Subcommittee, my written testimony provides numerous examples of concerns I express 

here today. In addition to this testimony, I can make available to 

the Subcommittee documentation to support any and all of the 

events that I described. 

Thank you for considering my experience with the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Brien follows:] 

23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEREMIAH O’BRIEN, VICE PRESIDENT, MORRO BAY COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN’S ORGANIZATION

Chairman Sullivan and members of the Subcommittee, 

My name is Jeremiah O’Brien, and my home port is Morro Bay, California. I am 

the Vice President of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization. I am 

on the Board of Directors of the Morro Bay Community Fund, and I am a member 

of the Harbor Advisory Board. 

For the general public, who only see sanctuaries as helping to preserve ocean 

health, but who have little knowledge of sanctuary management actions, sanctuaries 

are a positive, and their support is high. To their credit, sanctuaries are good at 

inspiring care of the ocean, a worthwhile goal. 

However, for those who are engaged directly with sanctuary managers over resource management, sanctuaries have a mixed scorecard, at best. By their actions 

Sanctuaries have created a difficult relationship with recreational and commercial 

fishermen, in particular. 

Difficulties arise in part from a lack of clarity between the Magnuson-Stevens 

Conservation and Fisheries Management Act, and the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act, both of which allow for the creation of fishing regulations. For sanctuaries, this 

power has emboldened them, particularly over habitat issues. For fishermen and 

fishery managers, the fact that sanctuaries can overrule the Regional Fishery Management Councils, with eight National Standards serving as the council’s guide, is 

disconcerting, and not in the best interest of ocean health. Sanctuaries, on the other 

hand, have weak science capabilities, and a poor, self-serving public process. I wonder: On what basis will a sanctuary overrule the science-based management of a Regional Fisheries Council? I hope Congress will make it clear that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the Nation’s law for fisheries and habitat management. 

Another major problem are the interpretations, by Sanctuary program leaders, of 

the terms ‘‘sanctuary’’ and ‘‘protection’’—interpreted to mean: steadily limiting 

human uses of the marine resources. One only needs to look to the charter for the 

sanctuaries’ Advisory Councils, mandated for use by the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, to see how the bent towards the preservation—not conservation—of resources, occurs. This lean towards preservation directly caused the Monterey and 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries to lead efforts to create no-fishing 

zones, taking the finest fishing grounds away from historic users. Sanctuary managers are so driven to limit human uses that they violated the principles of ecosystem-based management, as well as the Sanctuaries Act mandate to provide for 

comprehensive and coordinated management. They ignored our safety at sea concerns, the effects of displacing fishing efforts, and they refused to consider other 

fishing and habitat regulations, as the no-fishing zones were proposed. 

Fisheries in California currently are managed by the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and for state fisheries, our Department of Fish and Wildlife. It seems that many NGOs, with their own agendas, go 

around our normal fisheries management to the state legislature. If we add sanctuaries as yet another entity with regulatory powers to contend with, how will it 

be possible to do business or attract others in such an uncertain business environ? 

Sanctuaries only bring their values to the table, and not science. 

In California we have four national marine sanctuaries, with two more being proposed. Despite their original Designation Documents, each one has areas closed to 

fishing because of sanctuary efforts. Commercial fishermen wonder, is it really the 

intention of Congress that over 12,000 square miles of the California coast, with another 5,000 proposed, be deemed of national importance? Is there a sanctuary goal 

in California? If so, how many thousand miles more may we expect? 

Finally, there is the trust issue. Sanctuary managers have cast aside the good will 

of the recreational and commercial fishing communities by violating the promises 

made to us by NOAA officials and elected leaders, that sanctuaries will not threaten 

our livelihoods. Through years of cherry-picked science, a lack of transparency, and 

favoring a preservationist (and inaccurate) interpretation of the Sanctuaries Act, 

fishermen have rationally concluded that sanctuaries are not to be trusted. Sanctuary management actions have economically harmed the commercial and recreational fishing industries. In my home-port area, the Monterey Sanctuary helped 

lead an effort that closed almost half of our best fishing areas in state waters. This 

is why proposals for new or expanded sanctuaries are being vigorously opposed by 

fishermen and anglers. The actions of the sanctuaries are not helping U.S. Commerce Secretary Ross in meeting his goal of reducing the Nation’s dependence on 

imported seafood, which our industry whole heartedly supports. 

Chairman Sullivan and members of the Subcommittee, my written testimony provides numerous examples of the concerns I express today. In addition to this written 

24 

testimony, I can make available to the Subcommittee documentation in support of 

the events I have described. 

Thank you for considering my experiences with the National Marine Sanctuaries 

program. 

12–02–02 LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE TELEGRAM TRIBUNE

This was going to be a long letter but I have decided to shorten it, as there is 

only one important point to make here, the TRUTH. 

There is a movement afoot to bring the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

to this county. Proponents say that only we Commercial Fishermen are against it, 

when in reality the County Board of Supervisors are neutral with all board members except one voting that way. The Morro Bay City Council voted against The 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary unless we had local control. There is a 

letter out that even says the Cattlemen’s Association is for it, at least alludes to 

that, so I called them and they said they are definitely against it. 

All we would ask you when pondering this decision is to talk to the people North 

of us who are in positions that deal with the Sanctuary every day. The Monterey 

County Board of Supervisors, and the Harbor Departments in the affected areas. 

Just talk to the people living under the rule of the Federal Government who have 

lost local control, not only of their water but the land there also. Please talk to the 

people in authority there before making a decision you will not be able to change 

later. It is a simple way to the TRUTH. 

Sincerely, 

JEREMIAH O’BRIEN, 

MBCFO. 

January 7, 2008 

PAUL MICHEL, Sanctuary Superintendent, 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 

Monterey, CA. 

To Paul Michel, 

The men and women of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization 

would like to enter this letter in opposition to any further expansion of Marine Protected Areas on the Central Coast of California. We here in Morro Bay assisted in 

designing areas of essential fish habitat located in Federal waters off of our coast. 

We did this willingly, and were generally satisfied, and were led to believe this EFH 

was satisfactory to everyone. We also participated in the Marine Life Protection Act, 

which created the current Marine Protected Areas on the Central Coast, and in this 

effort we came away very disappointed at the massive amount of disruption and loss 

to the fishing industry. Now we learn that the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is considering adding further closures from the Federal Government adjacent 

to those closed by the state. Without going into the particulars of whether or not 

this is against the MBNMS charter as to not interfering with fishery regulations 

we would just like to ask that those of you in the sanctuary consider the effects of 

the regulations, both state and federal, the closures of areas to the fishermen, both 

state and federal, that include the Rockcod Conservation Area, essential fish habitat 

areas, and those areas closed by the Marine Life Protection Act. After considering 

these closures and the regulations heaped upon the fishing community would you 

please then look at the landings in the Ports that make up Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary area and adjacent ports to include Morro Bay, Monterey, Santa 

Cruz, Moss Landing, and Half Moon Bay. Between the years of 1996 and 2006 the 

fish landings for the port of Morro Bay were 2,675 tons in 1996 and 434 tons in 

2006; for Monterey 12,383 tons in 1996, 179 tons in 2006. The other ports suffered 

losses similar, some as great, and some not. But as you can see by these figures 

in these once productive fishing towns, what is left will not support any processing, 

or employment, or economic value to their communities. At what point will those 

people clamoring to close everything realize there is nothing left? For those of us 

in the fishing community who watch as our livelihoods are methodically drained 

away, and no effort is made to enhance or use those resources and fisheries that 

we have in such great abundance, but the environmental community today seems 

bent on insuring that all of America’s seafood is harvested in an unsustainable fashion by unregulated fisheries of foreign countries. Every pound of seafood that is not 

harvested in the United States then comes from a country that has much less regulation as we are the most regulated fishermen in the world. It would seem that the 

25 

Federal Government in its management efforts would take more time to sit down 

with the fishermen, not only to assess what is wrong with the fisheries, but what 

is right and to put their energies into sustainable harvest of the abundant stocks 

rather than continuing to run more fishermen off of the ocean. Please consider the 

numbers from the cities of Morro Bay and Monterey, and try to imagine the economic effects on those cities and the amount of people without work. We have not 

heard of any scientific survey or study that would indicate any species that further 

closures would protect. Is there a study that indicates this need, and shouldn’t this 

be the driving force in further closed areas? In conclusion, without this science, and 

looking at the poor economic situation that has already been developed, we believe 

any further Marine Protected Areas would jeopardize the fragile bit of fishing heritage that is left of the Central Coast of California. 

Sincerely, 

JEREMIAH O’BRIEN, 

President, 

Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization. 

Cc. Representative Lois Capps 

Mayor Janice Peters 

Steve Scheiblauer, Harbor Manager of Monterey Bay 

Rick Algert, Harbor Manager of Morro Bay 

MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Monterey, CA, February 15, 2008 

United States Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Dear Members of the Sanctuary Advisory Council: 

SUBJECT: Concepts for Process for MPA Identification and Assessment 

At the December 13 and 14 Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) meeting in Monterey, you provided your perspectives on the need for marine protected areas (MPAs) 

in Federal waters. That input was invaluable and I want to again thank you for 

your insights. Having found after careful consideration that there is a need for 

MPAs in Federal waters (see separate decision document), the MBNMS is now focused on the process ahead. At the December meeting, many of you also provided 

thoughts on how any process to move forward with MPAs should look. The attached 

draft list of concepts for a process builds upon what I heard from SAC members and 

can help define the road ahead. I would like to ask you to consider these concepts 

and provide preliminary input and advice at the February 15 meeting and, after a 

chance for further consideration, again at the April 18 meeting. In the meantime 

I will be meeting with NOAA Fisheries and the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

to receive their ideas and advice about the process for MPA identification and assessment and about how to best coordinate with them as well. 

Our goal is to establish a process that builds on the hard work and time investment by the MPA working group over the last five years. Carrying on from this 

point with well defined parameters and timelines will help ensure that the continuing effort remains inclusive and deliberate, but is also targeted and efficient. 

Thank you and I look forward to your input. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL MICHEL, 

Superintendent. 

26 

CONCEPTS FOR A PROCESS TO MOVE AHEAD WITH MPAS IN THE

MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

The following concepts are draft and are put forward by the MBNMS for consideration and feedback from the Sanctuary Advisory Council: 

1. Over the last 5 years, much work has gone into the consideration of MPAs 

including the development of tools, products and goals. To the maximum extent possible, the process ahead should capitalize on this previous work 

2. The membership of the MPA working group should remain approximately the 

same, although some adjustment to stakeholder representation may be warranted (i.e., add groundfish representation) 

3. Science members should remain involved but serve as subject matter experts, 

not as stakeholders. A separate but public science panel should be convened 

to evaluate eventual proposals 

4. Working group meetings should be professionally facilitated 

5. Working group and science panel meetings should be public and any products 

made publicly available 

6. The MPA planning process should provide for appropriate PFMC input and 

coordination 

7. There is a need for socioeconomic study to understand the impacts of Federal 

water MPAs 

8. A starting point for discussions should be the Areas of Interest previously 

identified by the working group that are adjacent to MPAs in state waters 

9. Adjacent State and Federal waters MPAs should generally have parallel regulations 

10. Once the planning process begins, the working group will have approximately 

6 meetings over 6 months to develop proposals to forward to the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council. The SAC will then provide it’s advice to the MBNMS, and 

the MBNMS will consult with the PFMC regarding implementation 

11. Any decision regarding how MPAs will be implemented under the NMSA, the 

MSA, or both will be made in the future in close coordination with NOAA 

Fisheries, and PFMC 

27 


627CHART1.eps

f.c . I f~ -:1! "' i 

.. ; i -1 ~il i .:P._ thtl ~~ : N - . 

r. . • . -i •j f" "hl i .· ,., _i ' f i.i _,. : tt " lR, -· 1\: · ·l tdt~ •. . .. T ----., 

l! ! "! .:! If tf i 

~ ~lliJiJHI ~ . 2fh~i

• ~ {lff ~ rpi 

:!: "' >:! 
28 

MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Monterey, CA, February 15, 2008 

United States Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Dear Members of the MPA Working Group and Sanctuary Advisory Council, 

As you know, the time has come for a decision on the need for marine protected 

areas (MPAs) in Federal waters of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

(MBNMS). I want to begin by thanking you for contributing your perspectives and 

knowledge to the consideration of this important issue. Your involvement over the 

last five years has been invaluable to increasing our understanding of the issue. The 

presentations and discussions we had at the December Advisory Council meeting 

were especially helpful and I commend you for your thoughtful input. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) has broad congressional direction to protect marine ecosystems. While the scope of this mandate allows for the 

management flexibility needed to protect dynamic sanctuary environments, charting 

the best course of action often takes time and patience. This is due to both the complexity of ocean issues and the NMSP’s emphasis on extensive public input. In 2001, 

the MBNMS solicited this input from the public as part of a review and rewrite of 

its management plan. Over a five year period, the MBNMS received thousands of 

comments, held over a hundred meetings, and with the help of the SAC, identified 

26 priority action areas that represent the future of Sanctuary management. Of 

these 26, the highest priority was the issue of marine protected areas in the Sanctuary. Given the complexity and diversity of opinions on this topic, the MBNMS convened a multi-stakeholder working group to develop a plan for evaluating the utility 

and potential siting of MPAs. As the State of California was re-focusing on MPAs 

in state waters through the Marine Life Protection Act, the MBNMS working group 

focused its attention on MPAs in the Sanctuary’s Federal waters (beyond 3 miles). 

Over the last five years MBNMS staff and the members of the MPA working 

group have compiled data layers, completed a resource assessment, conducted socioeconomic studies, sponsored workshops, and developed a web-based decision support 

tool. However, while the working group was able to compile and consider all of this 

information, it was not able to agree on the fundamental question of whether there 

is a need for MPAs in Federal waters. It was the MBNMS’s hope that consensus 

on the question of need could be reached, or that by focusing on specific areas, all 

sides might be able to live with particular MPA configurations. However, in the absence of consensus on this question it is the MBNMS’s responsibility to consider the 

arguments on both sides and make a decision regarding whether to move forward 

with a process to propose new MPAs. To that end, in December 2007, the MPA 

working group members presented their arguments for and against Federal water 

MPAs to the Sanctuary Advisory Council, which in turn gave its advice to the 

MBNMS. Since then, we have received about twelve thousand comments on this 

issue and I have continued to meet with stakeholders and partners to explain the 

process and solicit input. 

With the benefit of the community’s advice, input from partner agencies, and the 

last six years of consideration, the MBNMS has concluded that there is a need for 

MPAs in the Federal waters of the Sanctuary. The following pages discuss the reasons in support of this decision. 

The Role of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 

The NMSA is unique in that the primary purpose is to set aside nationally significant areas of the marine environment for their. permanent protection and to provide 

comprehensive ecosystem management to achieve this goal. As such, the NMSA provides broad authority for management actions focused on the protection and conservation of the full spectrum of biological diversity at a sanctuary. It can also fill 

gaps in protection that other authorities, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation Act (MSFCA), Marine Mammal Protection Act, or Endangered Species 

Act, are not able to address. Through the NMSA, Congress mandated that national 

marine sanctuaries be managed to maintain the habitats and ecological services of 

the natural assemblage of living resources that inhabit these nationally significant 

marine areas. Among the purposes and policies of the NMSA is provision of authority for comprehensive and coordinated management to maintain the natural biological communities and to protect, restore, and enhance natural habitats, populations, 

and ecological processes. In specifying the management of ‘‘natural biological communities,’’ ‘‘natural assemblages of living resources,’’ and ‘‘natural habitats,’’ rather 

than focusing on species populations per se, Congress essentially mandated that naVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
29 

tional marine sanctuaries be managed to protect and conserve ecosystem structure 

and function. 

The Benefits of MPAs 

As has been described to the Advisory Council in the past, the MBNMS has used 

zoning, or spatial management, extensively since its designation in 1992. The 

MBNMS has zones where: 

• A harmful human activity otherwise prohibited throughout the Sanctuary is allowed (motorized personal watercraft, harbor dredge disposal, jade collecting) 

• A harmful human activity is specifically prohibited (shark chumming, low overflights) 

These areas have proven effective in the context of managing the Sanctuary ecosystem by restricting or otherwise managing human activities. 

Scientific research has shown that carefully crafted MPAs can be effective tools 

for conserving the diversity of animals and plants, protecting habitats, and increasing both numbers and individual sizes of some species. Recent studies have shown 

that an MPA, in which the removal or alteration of marine life is prohibited or restricted, generally contains a greater abundance of species, higher diversity of species, and larger fish within its boundaries relative to similar habitats outside the 

protected area. These larger fish produce many more young than do smaller fish, 

and studies for some species have shown that their young are healthier and more 

likely to survive. MPAs have also been shown to be a useful tool for preventing, 

slowing, or reversing the degradation of ocean habitats and maintaining the diversity and abundance of species inhabiting them. 

Ocean ecosystems worldwide are threatened because of pollution, overfishing, 

habitat destruction or coastal development. In response, many governments, scientists, conservation organizations, commercial groups and citizens are increasingly 

discussing the idea of establishing new, well-designed MPAs to complement existing 

ocean management strategies. 

In the United States, both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and Pew Oceans 

Commission recently declared that our oceans are in trouble, and are calling for 

MPAs to be used as a management tool to support the protection of ocean ecosystems. 

Existing Spatial Management Efforts in the MBNMS 

Interest in implementing a system of marine protected areas has increased in 

California too. In 1999, the Legislature and Governor approved the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) mandating the state to design and manage an improved network 

of marine protected areas in state waters to protect marine life and habitats, marine 

ecosystems, and marine natural heritage. Currently the California Resources Agency and California Department of Fish and Game are partnering with others to 

achieve the goals of the MLPA, with initial efforts focused on developing a MPA network for California’s central coast region. In September 2007, after an intensive 

public processes in ocean governance, the first round of 29 new state MPAs (204 

square miles) went into effect on the central coast. 27 of the 29 areas are within 

the MBNMS. 

In the Federal waters of the Sanctuary, there are other spatial management 

measures in place that protect Sanctuary resources from extraction. For example, 

in 2002, as a means of protecting depleted groundfish species such as bocaccio and 

canary rockfishes, the Pacific Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries imposed depth-based restrictions on the trawl and non-trawl groundfish fisheries 

termed Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs). Furthermore, in June of 2006, NOAA 

Fisheries published the final rule designating and protecting Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) for Pacific groundfish. The action closed large areas of the west coast, primarily to bottom trawling. 

However, while the existing spatial management measures in state and Federal 

waters of the Sanctuary provide valuable protections from fishing impacts in certain 

habitats. Those habitats further offshore are either not adequately represented in 

existing MPAs, or not fully protected by the gear based restrictions associated with 

EFH or the temporary RCAs. 

The Need for MPAs in the MBNMS 

The MBNMS has three principal reasons for moving forward with MPAs in the 

Federal waters of the Sanctuary: (1) There is a need for areas where the natural 

ecosystem structure and function are restored and maintained; (2) there is a need 

for research areas to examine human impacts to the marine environment; and (3) 

there is a need to preserve some areas in their natural state for future generations. 

30 

Additional detail in support of these reasons is provided below. Further, the 

MBNMS, in consultation with NOAA Fisheries, will be releasing shortly an ecosystem analysis in support of this decision. 

1) There is a need for areas where the natural ecosystem structure and function is 

restored and maintained. 

The environmental condition of the Sanctuary is subject to major alterations that 

are largely due to the effects of human activities. Threats to Sanctuary resources, 

such as water quality or habitat complexity, fall into two general categories: (1) 

those that involve exploitation of resources above a certain level or threshold and 

(2) those that destroy or degrade marine habitats and their associated biological 

communities. Exploitation includes both directed harvest and incidental take of marine life. Threats to habitat include activities leading to physical alteration, various 

sources of pollution, coastal development, and introduction of alien species. Many 

of these threats are interrelated and have cumulative impacts. 

The Sanctuary ecosystem has been impacted from human activity (e.g., fishing activities) to a degree where the MBNMS believes that it is appropriate to set aside 

some areas in Federal waters where these impacts are minimized. These impacts 

include altered size and age structure of fish and invertebrate species, altered habitats, altered species assemblages and biodiversity, reduced abundance, and altered 

ecosystem function. Where appropriate, it is envisioned MPAs in Federal waters 

could build off of and supplement the state MPAs established under the MLPA in 

the Sanctuary. While there are other management measures in place such as those 

under the MSFCA, their stated purpose is to manage fisheries and are not designed 

to provide areas where the natural ecosystem structure and function are restored 

and maintained throughout the Sanctuary’s representative habitats. 

It is important to reiterate that the primary. purpose of any action taken by the 

MBNMS to establish MPAs in the Sanctuary is the conservation of Sanctuary ecosystem structure and function. This action would not be taken for the purpose of 

managing any single human activity or impact, but rather to manage for the protection of the Sanctuary ecosystem from a wide variety of existing or potentially new 

threats. 

2) There is a need for research areas to examine human impacts to the marine environment. 

Setting aside areas of the Sanctuary as MPAs can provide critical research opportunities in offshore habitats in order to more fully understand the effects of fishing 

and other uses on the Sanctuary environment. Even though the Sanctuary is one 

of the better understood marine areas in the world, there is a need to better distinguish human induced change from natural variability. In its 2001 publication entitled ‘‘Marine Protected Areas-Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems,’’ the National 

Research Council characterized the need for MPAs to help understand marine ecosystems: 

Understanding the influence of human actions on marine systems is critical to 

evaluating the need for and effectiveness of management actions, but differentiating between natural and anthropogenic events is extremely difficult. Any indicator of change in a system must be compared to a well-defined natural standard, or benchmark, against which the magnitude of the change can be evaluated 

to determine its cause and significance. Without control areas, such as MPAs, 

that are relatively free from human influence to compare with areas altered by 

human activities, explaining the sources of variability becomes even more difficult . . . There is a significant need for fishery-independent sampling programs 

that include areas closed to fishing and other activities that disturb fish populations and habitats. 

While the new MPAs in state waters do afford the opportunity to distinguish 

human induced change from natural variation and fluctuations, offshore habitats 

are not represented. These deeper water habitats are distinct from those nearshore 

as is their likely response to fishing impacts. Understanding impacts in these commercially important offshore areas is not only critical to effective Sanctuary management, but is also potentially key to effective ecosystem based fisheries management. 

The Marine Life Protection Act was intended in part to help the State understand 

the marine environment by providing the opportunity to study areas that are not 

directly impacted by fishing. Having comparable areas in Federal waters, potentially 

adjacent to state MPAs, would have the benefit of not only providing a greater 

range of habitat types in which to study the effects of fishing, but larger contiguous 

31 

areas could provide better control sites and enhanced opportunity for complementary Federal and state research efforts. 

3) There is a need to preserve some areas in their natural state for future generations. 

Section 301(a)(4)(c) of NMSA states that the National Marine Sanctuary System 

will maintain for future generations the habitat, and ecological services, of the natural assemblages of living resources that inhabit national marine sanctuaries (16 

U.S.C. 143l(a)(4)(c)). There are certain areas of the Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary environment with extraordinary features or attributes, such as habitat, 

biological diversity, or sensitivity, and warrant a higher level of protection than is 

currently provided by MBNMS regulations or those of other authorities, so that 

those features remain conserved for future generations in as close to a natural state 

as possible This rationale of ‘‘wildernesses of the sea’’ (areas of the marine environment that, like their counterpart on land, have inherent or intrinsic value due solely 

to their unique and/or exceptional qualities and receive the maximum level of protection) received strong support during the public comments periods on this process, 

as well as during the comment period for the Joint Management Plan Review. 

In addition, affording these areas with an elevated level of protection will provide 

them security against currently unknown human and environmental impacts and 

threats that may arise in the future. Changes in technology to a wide variety of marine-dependent human activities, such as energy development, communication systems, desalination, or aquaculture often result in significant deviations from how 

the activity had been previously conducted. In many cases, although these technological changes occur quickly, it takes several years for their impacts to be fully understood. Although the impacts of these activities may not immediately be known, 

it is the NMSP’s responsibility to steward our sanctuaries and to ensure, as much 

as possible, that they are enjoyed and appreciated by the American public in the 

future. Providing certain areas of the Sanctuary with elevated protection, while continuing to allow compatible uses elsewhere, furthers this goal. 

Furthermore, by managing these areas with additional protections in place, the 

MBNMS seeks to reduce the effects of cumulative impacts from human activities or 

from large scale environmental changes, such as climate change that are already 

occurring or may occur in the future. Restricting extractive or invasive human activities in these areas is expected to limit the effects on their special qualities to 

only those impacts that may occur as part of environmentally-driven events. Marine 

protected areas, by controlling for impacts for extractive human activities, will allow 

the MBNMS to assess the nature and severity of these events over time. 

Conclusion 

While this decision comes after years of public process and stakeholder input, 

much work remains ahead. Over the next several months, MBNMS staff will be asking the Sanctuary Advisory Council and the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

for input on how best to build on the efforts of the MPA working group to ensure 

an effective and timely public process. In deciding to move ahead, the NMSP is committing to dedicate the resources necessary to fully capitalize on the community’s 

continued input as well as to adequately understand the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of any proposed action. 

Any regulatory action proposed by NOAA to designate MPAs in Federal waters, 

whether under the NMSA, MSFCA or both, to specifically designate areas will be 

accompanied with a full environmental analysis per the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Thank you again for your valuable time and advice, and willingness to help chart 

the course. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL MICHEL, 

Superintendent. 

32 

United States Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Monterey, CA, April 15, 2008 

Dear Sanctuary Advisory Council Members, 

As you recall from my presentation at the February 15, 2008 meeting of the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) has decided to move 

forward with a process to propose marine protected areas (MPAs) in Federal waters 

of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS or Sanctuary). This letter 

provides additional information and rationale on this decision and clarifies the role 

of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) in managing the national marine 

sanctuaries from an ecosystem-based approach. I look forward to your continued 

participation, support, and advice on this important issue. 

1.0 Background 

The decision to move forward with a process to propose MPAs in the Sanctuary 

is based on advice from the regional community, input from partner agencies, and 

deliberations over the last five years by the MBNMS marine protected areas working group. If action is taken by the ONMS to establish MPAs in Federal waters of 

the Sanctuary, the primary purpose for this action is to protect biodiversity and protect natural habitats, populations, biological communities and ecological processes 

(in this document collectively referred to as protection of ecosystem components). 

This action would not be taken for the purpose of managing any single human activity or impact, but rather to protect biodiversity, and protect components of the ecosystem within the Sanctuary using ecosystem-based approaches to management. 

Under the NMSA, the ONMS’s responsibility for natural resource protection and 

ecosystem-based management is among the most comprehensive of all Federal programs. Sections 1.1 and 1.2 provide further context on the ONMS’s goal of marine 

resource protection and why MPAs are considered an essential ecosystem-based tool 

to address specific objectives within the broad goal of resource protection. 

1.1 Statutory context of proposed action 

The NMSA, of which the primary purpose is resource protection, is unique in that 

it allows management actions focused on the protection and conservation of the full 

spectrum of biological diversity and can serve as an important complement to tools 

focused on single species management, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NOAA Fisheries) manages individual species of economic importance under 

MSFCMA, the Nation’s primary law regulating fishing in Federal waters. The 

MSFCMA requires regional fishery management councils to develop fishery management plans (FMP) with goals of optimum sustainable yield to manage targeted populations. The MSFCMA also requires management of essential fish habitat and 

habitat areas of particular concern, but management actions must be focused on 

specific spatial and temporal attributes that support populations of species managed 

as part of an FMP. The ESA provides for broad protection of species listed as threatened or endangered, including recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat. 

The MMPA provides protections to marine mammals by prohibiting take of marine 

mammals and having a goal that individual marine mammal species or stocks remain at, or above their optimum sustainable population level. ‘‘Take’’ under the 

MMPA is defined as ‘‘harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt to harass, 

hunt, capture, kill or collect. 

While there are thousands of documented species in the Sanctuary, and many 

that remain unknown, only a small percentage is protected under the MSFCMA, 

ESA, and MMPA. Among the findings, purposes, and policies of the NMSA is the 

finding ‘‘while the need to control the effects of particular activities has led to enactment of resource-specific legislation, these laws cannot in all cases provide a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the conservation and management of special 

areas of the marine environment.’’ The NMSA is unique in that it allows for coordinated and comprehensive management actions focused on the protection and conservation of the full spectrum of biological diversity at a sanctuary rather than single species populations, which is the focus of other resource specific legislation. Congress found that national marine sanctuaries are areas of the marine environment 

that have special national significance and provides they be managed ‘‘to maintain 

33 

the natural biological communities . . . and to protect, restore, and enhance natural 

habitats, populations, and ecological processes.’’ 

Another provision of the NMSA (Section 301(b)(6)) addresses the tension between 

resource protection and human uses and/or activities of sanctuary resources, and 

states a purpose of the NMSA is ‘‘to facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources 

of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other authorities.’’ This provision 

of the NMSA identifies when facilitating public and private uses of sanctuary resources, resource protection is the primary objective and therefore takes precedence. 

Human uses should be facilitated only when compatible with resource protection. 

The MBNMS facilitates some form of compatible human use in vast portions of the 

Sanctuary. Such uses are sometimes facilitated under relevant legislation, such as 

the NMSA and the MSFCMA. Only small nearshore portions within MPAs implemented by the state of California prohibit all, or most forms of extractive activity. 

The purpose of facilitating human uses compatible with the primary objective of resource protection will be fully evaluated with the process to consider establishing 

MPAs in Federal waters of the MBNMS. 

In managing for biodiversity protection and ecosystem component protection, the 

authorities and protection measures afforded by all relevant statutes will be brought 

to bear in addressing the issues identified in sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 below. Furthermore, given the distinctions made above among relevant governing statutes, it 

is reasonable to anticipate that the ONMS would advocate for higher levels of protection for certain areas of the Sanctuary than would be applied throughout the 

whole of the Sanctuary. By pursuing a process to consider further protections, the 

MBNMS is not characterizing the current management of habitats, economically important species, listed species, or marine mammals in the Sanctuary as inadequate 

under their respective regimes. Instead, the existing management actions designed 

for individual species or stocks are not designed to fully meet the ecosystem component protection and biodiversity protection goals of the MBNMS under the NMSA. 

1.2 The ecosystem and MPA effects on components of the ecosystem 

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is within the California Current 

Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME), which has been subject to major alterations due 

to a combination of climatic and oceanographic variation and human activities (Chavez et al. 2003). The CCLME is subject to natural fluctuations in environmental conditions, typified by alternating climate regimes that differ in temperature, circulation, nutrient availability, and productivity over multiple time scales. For example, 

anchovy and sardine stock abundances have responded to these regime shifts over 

the last two millennia by cycling in or out of phase with environmental conditions 

(Finney et al. 2002). Typically, when anchovies are abundant, sardines are less 

abundant, and vice versa. During the downswing of one of these stocks, an anthropogenic or natural impact, such as overfishing or global warming, may alter their 

response to natural regime shifts and slow their recovery rate (Chavez et al. 2003, 

Palumbi et al. 2008). Ed Ricketts in 1946 suggested that this might have occurred 

to the sardine stocks that were heavily exploited in the Monterey Bay (Rodger 

2002). 

The ONMS’s ability to accurately evaluate the scale and consequences of change 

in the state of the Sanctuary’s natural resources is often challenged by an inadequate knowledge of historic baselines to compare with present conditions. A number of global studies have recorded substantial decreases in abundances of large consumers, such as whales, turtles, sharks and pelagic fish (Jackson et al., 2001, Myers 

and Worm 2003). The following historic baselines of the ecosystem off the California 

central coast region concur with this global phenomenon. For example, Jean Francois de la Perouse described in 1792 what are believed to be the abundance of gray 

whales and stated, ‘‘it is impossible to describe the number of whales . . . they 

blowed every half minute within a pistol shot from our frigate.’’ Blue, right, gray 

and humpback whales were subsequently hunted to the edge of extinction. Despite 

full protection by the International Whaling Commission in 1947 for the California 

gray whale, their current numbers only represent 28–56 percent of their original 

historical abundance for the east Pacific population (Alter et al. 2007). 

Shallow rocky reefs off the California coast often exist in alternative states comprised of kelp forests or urchin barrens (Tegner and Dayton 2000), depending on 

many environmental variables, but chiefly on the presence of urchin predators, such 

as spiny lobsters and sheephead in southern California or sea otter populations in 

central California. Hunted for their fur in the 1800s, sea otters were nearly extirpated before laws protecting otters were enacted. Sea otters have the potential for 

regulating kelp forest communities and the number and diversity of fishes resident 

in these nearshore communities (Estes and Palmisano 1974). As early as 1850, 

34 

trophic cascades brought about by sea otter exploitation led to population explosions 

of two herbivorous invertebrates, abalone and sea urchins. Had it not been for the 

thriving abalone fishery led by the Chinese in the area, more serious impacts on 

kelp forest and the associated ecosystem might have been experienced. Although the 

size or location of any proposed MPAs in Federal waters of the Sanctuary would be 

inappropriate for protection and restoration of whale or sea otter populations, these 

examples serve to demonstrate how the natural state of certain species within the 

CCLME and the Sanctuary have shifted to a fraction of their historical abundances. 

Marine fauna have undergone substantial population changes due to climatic influences and human activities. These examples support the need for long-term datasets 

to distinguish natural ecosystem variation inherent in the CCLME from anthropogenic forcing. 

The basic diversity of marine life and the patterns and processes controlling distribution and abundance of marine organisms in the Sanctuary are still not well understood, especially in offshore waters and deeper habitats. At the same time, new 

technologies (e.g., geographic information systems or GIS) and conceptual advances 

(e.g., theoretical models) in ecosystem based management allow the ONMS to implement research and management approaches that seek to reveal a more complete understanding of ecosystem components of the Sanctuary’s deepwater communities. 

Protecting biodiversity and ecosystem components is central to the implementation of ecosystem-based management, an evolving approach that stresses management of the Sanctuary in context of its ecosystem, including all habitats and species 

populations, biological communities, and all human activities. Both ecosystem-based 

management and MPAs offer an integrated approach to marine resource management (NRC 2001, MPA FAC 2006). Numerous advisory panels, such as the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission as well as many marine scientists, believe that management of marine resources in U.S. waters would 

be most effective if implemented explicitly from an ecosystem perspective (NOAA 

2005; Francis et al. 2007). The goal of ecosystem-based management is to achieve 

healthy and resilient ecosystems so that they can provide services humans need and 

want, such as water and air purification, seafood, recreation, and spiritual connections (MPA FAC 2006). MPAs promote an ecosystem-based approach to managing 

and understanding marine resources by protecting geographical areas, including 

resident organisms and their biophysical environment (Lubchenco et al. 2003). 

MPA effects on ecosystem components range from habitat and population level responses to community level responses. For example, in areas less impacted by bottom-contact gear, particularly trawl gear, benthic habitats were topographically and 

structurally more complex, providing increased shelter for juvenile fish and reducing 

their vulnerability to predation (Kaiser et al. 2002). Engel and Kvitek (1998) compared highly trawled areas to lightly trawled areas in the Sanctuary and found 

lightly trawled areas to contain more heterogeneous sediments, more detritus, and 

higher abundances of opportunistic species. 

In a global study by Halpern (2003) of 89 no-take MPAs, the increased protection 

inside these particular MPAs yielded, on average, increases in species number, size, 

and diversity. Improvements in size and age structure of fish populations may improve reproductive capacity, for older fish may produce larger, healthier, and more 

fit larvae (Berkeley et al. 2004a). A broad spectrum of age classes may also buffer 

a population against long periods of recruitment failure and unfavorable conditions 

induced by natural or anthropogenic sources (Berkeley et al. 2004b). These improvements in habitat and population variables have been shown to provide benefits to 

economically important species (Murawski et al. 2000). 

At the community scale within the Sanctuary, natural refugia from human activities had higher abundances of large rockfishes (Sebastes spp.) than areas utilized 

by humans (Yoklavich et al. 2000). Shifts in community composition may disrupt direct and indirect ecological processes inherent in food webs and alter community 

trophic interactions and energy flow. A few studies of MPAs have shown to reverse 

these trends inside their boundaries by increasing predator abundances and restoring their top-down role in trophic cascades (e.g., Shears and Babcock 2003), and by 

increasing species richness and functional diversity (Micheli and Halpern 2005). 

Food web structures are complex and their influence on ecosystem states even more 

complex. A study of coral reef interactions inside a large marine reserve revealed 

increased levels of grazing by herbivorous fishes despite increases in predator abundances, which in turn reduced algal cover and increased live coral cover (Mumby 

et al. 2006). 

At the ecosystem scale, MPAs have higher biodiversity, which plays a role in ecosystem productivity and stability. Worm et al. (2006) conducted a global comparison 

of regional biodiversity and argued that ecosystems with higher regional species 

richness appeared more stable, showing lower rates of extinction of economically imVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
35 

portant fishes and invertebrates over time. The same study reviewed how increased 

biodiversity in no-take MPAs and fishery-based MPAs were associated with large increases in productivity among economically important species. 

Therefore, MPAs are considered an effective ecosystem-based tool for protecting 

biodiversity and ecosystem components. In addition, MPAs may also contribute to 

human uses, such as ecotourism and bolstering depleted stocks. Benefits of MPAs 

in the Federal portions of the Sanctuary are most likely to be detected inside the 

boundaries of the MPA over many years to decades, particularly for sedentary species. Benefits beyond the MPA boundaries will be much harder to detect, but could 

include spillover of adults (McClanahan and Mangi 2000; Gell and Roberts 2003) 

and larval dispersal into adjacent areas (Murawski et al. 2000). It is important to 

note that even well-managed MPAs will require continued conservation efforts beyond their boundaries to be effective at promoting biodiversity and conserving ecosystem components (Murray et al. 1999). 

2.0 Management Objectives for MPAs in Federal Waters of the MBNMS 

Marine zones, such as MPAs that offer protections complementing those currently 

afforded to the Sanctuary as a whole, are tools of spatial management. Marine zones 

are not a new endeavor for the ONMS or the MBNMS. In fact, the MBNMS has 

used zoning since the Sanctuary was designated in 1992. Currently, the MBNMS 

has zones where: 

• Certain human activities, otherwise prohibited throughout the Sanctuary, are 

allowed (such as motorized personal watercraft, harbor dredge disposal, or jade 

collection); 

• Certain human activities are specifically prohibited (such as shark chumming 

or low over-flights by airplanes). 

Through restricting or redirecting potentially harmful or disruptive human activities, these marine zones have improved management and protection of the Sanctuary’s ecosystem components. There are three principal management objectives for 

moving forward with MPAs as additional marine zones in the Federal waters of the 

Sanctuary: 

1. Preservation of unique and rare areas in their natural state for the benefit of 

future generations; 

2. Preservation of areas where natural ecosystem components are maintained 

and/or restored; 

3. Designation of research areas to differentiate between natural variation versus 

human impacts to ecological processes and components. 

Supporting information and reasoning for each of these management objectives is 

detailed below. 

2.1. Preservation of unique and rare areas in their natural state for the benefit of 

future generations 

In section 301(a)(4)(C) of the NMSA, Congress finds that the National Marine 

Sanctuary System will ‘‘maintain for future generations the habitat, and ecological 

services, of the natural assemblages of living resources that inhabit these areas.’’ 

There are certain areas of the Sanctuary environment with extraordinary features 

or attributes, such as unique habitats, biological diversity, or sensitivity, warranting 

a higher level of protection than currently provided by MBNMS regulations and 

other authorities. These areas of inherent or intrinsic value, due solely to their 

unique and/or exceptional qualities, may be considered analogous to land areas that 

are cherished and protected solely for their superlative beauty and untamed wildlife. 

There are similar wildlife areas in the Sanctuary, teeming with mysterious and 

stunning life, such as deep sea coral and sponge communities (NOAA 2008) or 

chemosynthetic biological communities that are vulnerable to human activities and 

deserve special protections. The concept of protecting ‘‘special places’’ within the 

Sanctuary of intrinsic value received strong support during the public comment for 

the Joint Management Plan Review (approximately 50 percent of comments), as well 

as comments received when considering the decision to pursue the action of establishing MPAs to manage resources in the Federal portions of the Sanctuary (> 95 

percent of comments). 

By providing additional protections to areas of intrinsic value, the MBNMS can 

provide defense against unforeseen impacts and threats from technological advances 

in marine activities. Changes in a wide variety of marine technologies such as desalination, energy development, or aquaculture may result in unintentional deviations from how the activity had been previously conducted and potentially negatively affect natural resources of the Sanctuary. In many cases, although these techVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
36 

nological changes occur quickly, it can take many years to decades for their impacts 

to be fully understood. The ONMS therefore, can proactively steward special places 

within the Sanctuary and seek to ensure they are protected for the public now and 

in the future. 

2.2. Preservation of areas where natural ecosystem components are maintained and/ 

or restored 

Section 301(b)(3) of NMSA guides the ONMS ‘‘to maintain the natural biological 

communities in the national marine sanctuaries’’, and ‘‘to protect, and, where appropriate, restore and enl1ance natural habitats, populations, and ecological process.’’ 

In an effort to achieve this goal, current MBNMS regulations protect Sanctuary resources and attributes from a variety of human activities that can have adverse impacts on the ecosystem. Examples include regulatory prohibitions on oil and gas development, resource extraction, discharge of harmful materials, and seafloor alterations. 

To provide for additional protection of the natural components of the ecosystem, 

other human activities could be restricted or prohibited within any Federal waters 

MPAs designated in the Sanctuary. Activities that may require further regulation 

in Federal waters include installation of cables, construction of offshore wave energy 

facilities, commercial and recreational extraction, extractive research, offshore aquaculture, and other types of bottom-contact activities. The effects of most of these activities are currently not well defined, with the exception of fishing. Fishing is one 

of the most studied human activities of the marine environment with a wide variety 

of data and sources analyzing its effect on components of marine ecosystems. 

The ONMS does not regulate fishing in the Sanctuary and does not consider the 

establishment of MPAs for MBNMS objectives as a tool for fisheries management. 

However, any potential MPAs implemented by the MBNMS and existing or future 

zones designated by fisheries management agencies (hereafter referred to as fisherybased MPAs) may complement each other by contributing to the objectives of ecosystem conservation and sustainable production, respectively. The fishery-based 

MPAs implemented by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) within the 

Sanctuary are rebuilding overfished populations (Rockfish Closed Areas, RCA) and 

protecting essential fish habitat (EFH: bottom trawl closed areas within the Sanctuary and bottom contact closed areas over Davidson Seamount). The RCAs provide 

seasonal protection to groundfish assemblages of ‘‘weak and strong stocks’’ by prohibiting the take of overfished species (weak stocks) that co-occur with healthy species (strong stocks). Recent stock assessments show notable improvement to the status of the overfished stocks, likely due to the RCAs and conservative total allowable 

catch (TAC) limits for the west coast groundfish fishery. The fishery-based MPAs 

thus contribute, in part, to the objective of ‘‘restoring ecosystem components’’ by rebuilding overfished stocks. However, the focus of these particular fishery-based 

MPAs is to rebuild individual stocks and will presumably be discontinued when 

stocks have been rebuilt (timeline: 2–80 years). The performance of designated EFH 

areas is currently being evaluated. For example, the MBNMS has partnered with 

Dr. James Lindholm to evaluate the recovery trajectory of a non-trawled area 

(EFH), compared to a trawled area (J. de Marignac, personal communication). 

Fishing activities have altered marine resources and components of the ecosystem 

globally (NRC 2006) and within the Sanctuary (Yoklavich 2000; Levin et al. 2006). 

Examples of general effects include alterations to population abundances, size and 

age structure of fishes and invertebrate species, habitats, and species diversity. The 

dramatic decline of some rockfish species (Sebastes spp.) and the lengthy projected 

periods to rebuild to target levels are sufficient evidence that components of the 

groundfish community and habitats have been strongly impacted by fishing activity 

(Ralston 2002). Furthermore, based on two decades of bottom trawl surveys of the 

California Current, Levin et al. (2006) found evidence for broad-scale changes in 

community composition of groundfishes. 

How these changes to groundfish populations and community composition ultimately affect the community interactions of the Sanctuary is thus far unknown. 

However, studies of temperate communities, both in central California and other regions, show that removal of predators can have cascading impacts to lower trophic 

levels. As alluded to earlier, the structure of kelp forest communities along the west 

coast from Alaska to southern California is strongly influenced by the relative abundance of predators (e.g., killer whales, sea otters, lobsters, sheephead) and prey (e.g., 

sea urchin, abalone) (Estes and Palmisano 1974, Estes et al. 1998, Steneck et al. 

2002, Halpern et al. 2006). Other predator-prey examples from the North Atlantic 

and Baltic Sea demonstrate how the demise of a predatory fish has led to substantial increases in the abundance of its prey (Worm and Meyers, 2003; Zabel et al. 

2003). When community interactions are included in a model for design of no-take 

37 

MPAs for west coast rockfish, two alternative community states are predicted as a 

consequence of initial densities of predator and prey fish species: one where the 

overfished rockfish predators dominate and one where the prey dominates (Baskett 

et al. 2006). 

Declines in functional species or groups, such as the demise of key predators and 

herbivores, may also represent a loss of ecological redundancy, reducing ecosystem 

resilience and rendering the ecosystem vulnerable to additional anthropogenic 

threats or climatic change (Palumbi et al. 2008). Coral reef communities in Jamaica, 

for example, shifted from predominantly coral cover to algal cover due to serial loss 

of functional herbivores. Fishing had removed predatory and herbivorous fishes, and 

once a disease wiped out the remaining principal herbivore (the long-spined sea urchin), the reef community shifted to one dominated by fleshy algae. Nutrient input 

from sedimentation and sewage further contributes to the persistence of algal dominated reefs (Hughes et al. 1999). Recovery from alternative ecosystem states can be 

delayed by complex and often indirect interactions among species and the environment (Peterson et al. 2003). 

On the west coast, the PFMC’s groundfish FMP establishes a goal of reducing exploited populations to 40 percent of their unfished size (Ralston 2002). With few exceptions, the direct and indirect effects of removing this quantity of biomass from 

the ecosystem are poorly understood at an ecosystem level. The initial recovery of 

some overfished stocks on the west coast and the absence of trophic cascades as a 

consequence of their removal would suggest that fishing activities have not irreversibly perturbed the ecosystem. However, even though local data are lacking, ecological principles coupled with theoretical models and empirical studies from other regions would strongly advocate for using a precautionary approach. Risk-averse approaches are essential when uncertainty is high and the costs of error may produce 

irreversible damage. A precautionary approach is central to ecosystem-based tenets 

(Francis et al. 2007) and it is also applied by the PFMC and NOAA Fisheries, who 

utilize a precautionary approach in promoting sustainable fisheries, particularly 

when data are poor or lacking for managing economically important species. Because data are limited on the ecosystem-level effects of fishing and other human activities, this approach would dictate establishing areas where human activities are 

minimized, as a means to hedge against scientific and management uncertainty. 

These areas would help maintain and restore ecosystem components, and serve as 

research areas to study and better distinguish natural variation from anthropogenic 

impacts. 

Setting aside certain areas of the Sanctuary as MPAs would also prepare the 

MBNMS for future management challenges. By establishing MPAs as areas with 

additional protections, the MBNMS can provide security against cumulative impacts, and unforeseen human and environmental threats by maintaining intact ecosystem components that are better able to recover, resist and reverse natural and 

human disturbances (Palumbi et al. 2008). The importance of resilient ecosystem 

components is one purpose of the NMSA, which states ‘‘develop and implement coordinated plans for the protection and management of [national marine sanctuaries] 

with . . . interests concerned with the continuing health and resilience of these marine areas.’’ 

2.3 Designation of research areas to differentiate between natural variation versus 

human impacts to ecological processes and components 

Section 301(b)(5) of the NMSA addresses the importance of research by stating 

‘‘support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and long-term monitoring 

of, the resources of these marine areas.’’ Developing an understanding of the interactions and interdependence of living marine resources in a natural environment is 

key to effective management. As with the protection of any natural resource, information on the status and natural variability of resource components, species, and 

interactions is essential for the informed management of an area as extensive as 

the Sanctuary. In order to adequately differentiate between anthropogenic and natural changes and to further determine how those changes might affect other components of the ecosystem, a baseline set of ecosystem measurements should be established and monitored over subsequent years. As these data are gathered and analyzed, scientists and managers can determine with greater confidence how much 

variability is natural in a system and how much may be the result of anthropogenic 

influence. With a better understanding of the factors that influence ecosystem components, managers can support both improved protection of the resource and a more 

rapid and appropriate response to natural and/or human-induced perturbations. 

Control areas, places where extractive or disruptive anthropogenic activities are 

minimized, are critical for the MBNMS in order to determine the responses of key 

resources to human influence. By comparing changes in key resources in a control 

38 

area to other areas of the Sanctuary, MBNMS management would have better information to address the needs of research, protection, and constituent use of the resources. The research conducted in MPAs could be done in partnership with, or individually by, other managing agencies (e.g., NOAA Fisheries, PFMC, and the State of 

California), academic institutions, the fishing community, and conservation groups. 

The type of questions that can be addressed by establishing MPAs for research purposes include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• What variability is inherent in the natural ecosystem components and what 

changes may be the result of human influence? 

• What are the effects of extractive activities on ecosystem components? 

• How would benthic communities change in response to a further reduction in 

human activity? 

• What are the recovery trajectories in disturbed habitats? 

• Where along the continuum of community structure does the protected area fall 

compared to unprotected or heavily used areas? 

• What is the functional role of deep-sea biogenic habitats, such as deepwater corals, sponges, and chemosynthetic biological communities in regulating community structure? 

In addition, the Marine Life Protection Act was intended, in part, to help the 

State of California understand the nearshore marine environment by providing the 

opportunity to study areas that are not directly impacted by human activities. Having similar research areas in Federal waters, where results can be compared to 

those found in state waters, is not only critical to effective management of the Sanctuary, but is also key to effective ecosystem-based management. 

2.4 Other considerations 

The MBNMS recently evaluated the number and type of MPAs currently located 

within the boundaries of the Sanctuary to determine their role in addressing MPA 

objectives 2.1 thru 2.3. The state-implemented MPAs meet all three objectives, but 

only for the nearshore environment. The fishery-based MPAs (EFH and RCA), in 

part, meet objectives 2.2 and 2.3 for components of deepwater communities. Thus, 

fishery-based MPAs are complementary, but not sufficient in meeting the MBNMS 

objectives for MPAs in Federal waters of the Sanctuary. The fishery-based MPAs 

protect some economically important species and their associated habitats, but do 

not adequately protect other non-economically important species or habitats. Nor 

are the protections permanent or year-round. In addition, fishery-based MPAs cannot restrict other potentially harmful human activities, such as construction of energy farms (wind or wave generated), unless they impact managed fishery species 

or fishing activities themselves. The target of any MPA that may be implemented 

on behalf of the ONMS is to protect biodiversity and ecosystem components, which 

is distinct from the targets for fishery-based MPAs. Additional measures that may 

be complementary to the fishery-based MPAs are required to address these differences among management approaches. 

Additions to existing fishery-based MPAs may be an option to achieve multiple, 

yet separate, objectives of the MSFCMA and NMSA. For example, there may be 

merit in considering a few select areas for long-term protection of spawning biomass, age structure, and community structure for some of the more vulnerable habitats and species. These options would be considered as part of an open, transparent, 

and inclusive process with MBNMS partners, stakeholders, and constituent groups. 

3.0 Conclusion 

The natural resources of the Sanctuary and the environmental services they provide to the United States are unique, nationally treasured, and internationally recognized. However, certain human and natural impacts to the Sanctuary ecosystem 

have either become more severe or more apparent since the designation of the Sanctuary in 1992. MPAs are a promising tool for reducing and reversing some of these 

impacts within discrete areas of the Sanctuary. Current protections either do not 

cover offshore habitats in Federal waters (state MPAs) or only provide limited protection based on target species or activities (EFH and RCAs). 

The ONMS’s responsibility to manage and protect special marine areas of the Nation’s public domain is clearly defined in the NMSA. Given this responsibility, coupled with ecosystem based management principles, the ONMS determined it is appropriate to consider setting aside some areas in representative habitats of the 

Sanctuary where human impacts can be minimized and the natural ecosystem components of these areas may be restored and maintained. Considering establishment 

39 

of these areas is compatible with ONMS’s ecosystem-based approach to the management of NOAA trust resources and is responsive to public appeals for increased protection. 

As such, the ONMS is initiating a process to propose designating MPAs in the 

Federal waters of the Sanctuary, with goals of preserving unique and rare areas in 

their natural state for the benefit of future generations, preserving areas where natural ecosystem components arc maintained and/or may recover, and serving as research areas to differentiate between natural variation versus human impacts to ecological processes and components. There are many approaches ONMS can take to 

meeting these goals, and no determination has been made regarding the authority 

under which any new MPAs would be implemented. This decision will be an integral 

part to the process of establishing MPAs in the Sanctuary and will be made in close 

consultation with NOAA Fisheries, the PFMC, and other regulatory and resource 

management agencies. 

Moving forward with a process will also involve focused stakeholder and public 

involvement and the MBNMS encourages public participation throughout. Further, 

the MBNMS will be seeking additional input from its Sanctuary Advisory Council, 

the PFMC, NOAA Fisheries and other regional resource management partners regarding the process to establish MPAs in Federal portions of the Sanctuary. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL MICHEL, 

Sanctuary Superintendent. 

Literature Cited 

Alter SE, Rynes E, Palumbi SR (2007) DNA evidence for historic population size 

and past ecosystem impacts of gray whales. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences 104(38):15162–15167 

Baskett ML, Yoklavich M, Love MS (2006) Predation, competition, and recovery 

of overexploited fish stocks in marine reserves. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 63:1214–1229 

Berkeley SA, Chapman C, Sogard SM (2004a) Maternal age as a determinant of 

larval growth and survival in a marine fish, Sebastes melanops.Ecology 85:1258– 

1264 

Berkeley SA, Hixon MA, Larson RJ, Love MS (2004b) Fisheries sustainability via 

protection of age structure and spatial distribution offish populations. Fisheries 

29:23–32 

Chavez FP, Ryan J, Lluch-Cota SE, Niquen MC (2003) From anchovies to sardines and back: multi-decadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299:217—221 

Engel J, Kvitek R (1998) Effects of otter trawling on a benthic community in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology 12:1204–1214 

Estes JA, Palmisano JF (1974) Sea otters: their role in structuring nearshore communities. Science 185: 1058–1060 

Estes JA, Tinker MT, Williams TM, Doak DF (1998) Killer whale predation on 

sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282:473–476 

Finney BP, Gregory-Eaves I, Douglas MS, Smol JP (2002) Fisheries productivity 

in the northeastern Pacific Ocean over the past 2,200 years. Nature 416:729–733 

Francis RC, Hixon MA, Clarke ME, Murawski SA, Ralston S (2007) Ten commandments for ecosystem-based fisheries scientists. Fisheries 32:217–233 

Halpern BS (2003) The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications 13:S117–S137 

Halpern BS, Cottenie K, Broitman BR (2006) Strong top-down control in Southern 

California kelp forest ecosystems. Science 312:1230–1232. 

Gell FR, Roberts CM (2003) The fishery effects of marine reserves and fishery closures. WWF Washington, D.C., USA 90 pp 

Hughes T, Szmant AM, Steneck R, Carpenter R, Miller S (1999) Algal blooms on 

coral reefs: what are the causes? Limnology and Oceanography 44:1583–1586 

Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque, BJ, 

Bradbury RH, Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes JA, Hughes TP, Kidwell S, Lange CB, 

Lenihan HS, Pandolfi, JM,Peterson CH, Steneck RS, Tegner MJ, Warner RR (2001) 

Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 

293:629–638 

40 

Kaiser MJ, Collie JS, Hall SJ, Jennings S, Poiner IR (2002) Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries 

3:114–136 

Levin PS, Holmes EE, Piner KR, Harvey CJ (2006) Shifts in a Pacific Ocean fish 

assemblage: the potential influence of exploitation. Conservation Biology 20:1181– 

1190 

Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Gaines SD, Andelman S (2003) Plugging a hole in the 

ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13:S3–S7 

McClanahan TR, Mangi S (2000) Spillover of exploitable fishes from a marine 

park and its effects on the adjacent fishery. Ecological Applications 110:1792–1805 

Micheli F, Halpern BS (2005) Low functional redundancy in coastal marine assemblages. Ecology Letters 8:391–400 

MPA FAC (Marine Protected Area Federal Advisory Committee) (2006) Marine 

protected areas: a fundamental tool for ecosystem-based management. Silver Spring, 

Maryland 

Mumby PJ, Dahlgren CP, Harborne AR, Kappel CV, Micheli F, Brumbaugh DR, 

Holmes KE, Mendes JM, Broad K, Sanchirico JN Buch K, Box S, Stoffle RW, Gill 

AB (2006) Fishing, trophic cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. 

Science 311: 98–101 

Murawski S, Brown R, Lai HL, Rago PJ, Hendrickson L (2000) Large-scale closed 

areas as a fisheries management tool in temperate marine systems: the Georges 

Bank experience. Bulletin of Marine Sciences 66:775–798 

Murray SN, Ambrose RF, Bohnsack JA, Botsford LW, Carr MH, Davis GE, Dayton PK, Gotshall D, Gunderson D, Hixon MA, Lubchenco J, Mangel M, MacCall A, 

McArdle DA, Ogden JC, Roughgarden J, Starr RM, Tegner M, Yoklavich MM (1999) 

No-take reserve networks: sustaining fishery populations and marine ecosystems. 

Fisheries 24(11):11–25 

Myers RA, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280–283 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (2005) New priorities 

for the 21st Century—Updated for FY 2006–FY 2011 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (2008) Report to Congress on the implementation of the deep sea coral research and technology program. 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

NRC (National Research Council) (2001) Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 288 pp. 

NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Dynamic changes in marine ecosystems: 

fishing, food webs, and future options committee on ecosystem effects of fishing: 

phase II—assessments of the extent of change and the implications for policy. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 160 pp. 

Palumbi SR, McLeod KL, Grunbaum D (2008) Ecosystems in action: lessons from 

marine ecology about recovery, resistance, and reversibility. Bioscience 58(1):33–42 

Peterson CH, Rice SD, Short JW, Esler D, Bodkin JL, Ballachey BE, Irons DB 

(2003) Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 

302:2082–2086 

Ralston S (2002) West coast groundfish harvest policy. North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management 22:249–250 

Rodger KA (2002) Renaissance man of Cannery Row: the life and letters of Edward F. Ricketts. University of Alabama Press, Tuskaloosa 

Shears NT, Babcock RC (2003) Continuing trophic cascade effects after 25 years 

of no-take marine reserve protection. Marine Ecology Progress Series 246:1–16 

Tegner MJ, Dayton PK (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing in kelp forest communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:579–589 

Steneck RS, Graham MH, Bourque BJ, Corbett D, Erlandson JM, Estes JA, 

Tegner MJ (2002) Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental Conservation 29:436–459 

Worm B, Myers RA (2003) Meta-analysis of cod-shrimp interactions reveals topdown control in oceanic food webs. Ecology 84: 162–173 

Worm B, Barbier EB, Beamnont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Halpern BS, Jackson JBC, 

Lotze HK, Micheli F, Palumbi SR, Sala E, Selkoe K, Stachowicz JJ, Watson R 

(2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314:787–790 

41 

Yoklavich MM, Greene HG, Cailliet GM, Sullivan DE, LeaRN, Love MS (2000) 

Habitat associations of deep-water rockfishes in a submarine canyon: an example 

of a natural refuge. Fishery Bulletin 98:625–641 

Zabel RW, Harvey CJ, Katz SL, Good TP, Levin PS (2003) Ecologically sustainable yield. American Scientist 91:150–157 

AGENDA ITEM I.1.E

ATTACHMENT 2 

June 2008 

Comments on the proposal for MPAs within the MBNMS. 

MBNMS Decision and Rationale Documents of 2/15/08 and 4/15/08. 

Ray Hilborn May 2008 

When examining any management action I ask first, ‘‘What is the objective?’’ How 

would we evaluate any specific proposal? The MBNMS proposal begins with the following statement: 

‘‘the primary purpose of this action is to protect biodiversity and protect natural 

habitats, populations, biological communities and ecological processes’’ 

Since the level of protection would be maximized by absolute protection, including 

protection from non-consumptive recreational use, and there is a clear tradeoff between human use, and level of protection, this objective statement provides no basis 

for determining how much protection is appropriate. Implicit throughout the report 

is the assertion that the current levels of protection are not sufficient, but there is 

no basis for making any decisions on how much is enough. 

The report argues that only a small portion of species are protected under 

MSFCMA, ESA, MMPA and this implies that exploited species that are well managed are not protected. Further this implies that an ecosystem that is being fished 

under the guidelines of the MSFCMA is not protected, yet the clear intent of 

MSFCMA is to protect the productivity of species and ecosystems for sustainable 

utilization. In short, there is a clear implication in this document that protection 

means no human impact. 

I believe it can be argued that the legal frameworks of the MSFCMA, ESA, 

MMPA, NEPA etc is to specifically protect the marine ecosystems in Federal waters, 

and to protect them so that sustainable human use is possible. The EFH provisions 

of MSFCMA are clearly designed for such provisions. The assertion that the existing 

legislation does not provide for protection seems to be fallacious. 

The literature review is highly biased. For instance the Myers and Worm 2003 

paper arguing that all the big fish of the ocean had declined by 90 percent by 1980, 

has repeatedly been shown to be wrong (Sibert et al. 2006). The authors discuss the 

status of California grey whales, and cite a highly controversial genetics paper suggesting that the stock is not fully rebuilt, while ignoring the extensive work by 

NOAA and the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission 

which suggest the stock has returned to its unfished abundance. In short the authors of this report have made no attempt to make a balanced analysis of the evidence on any of the issues but have been highly selective in their choice of literature 

to discuss. The literature review of MPA’s is similarly highly biased, and (among 

other things) makes no attempt to recognize (1) the historically low exploitation 

rates on fishes in the system, (2) the fact that bottom contact gear historically covered only a small portion of the total habitat, (3) the recovery of the groundfish community in recent years to greater than 50 percent of its unfished abundance and 

(4) the extensive portion of the MBNMS that is closed to trawling. 

The report is highly deficient in not recognizing the extent of existing areas closed 

to fishing, both from trawl bans, rockfish conservation areas, essential fish habitat 

and existing closed areas such as the Davidson Seamount. The report makes no attempt to determine if the protection from these activities is sufficient to achieve the 

objectives of the NMSA. 

The document argues that the ecosystem needs further protection, and that the 

major ecosystem changes have been in the groundfish community. While admitting 

that some of the overexploited groundfish have begun to recover, the possibility that 

all of the ecosystem concerns cited are already addressed by the combination of various management agencies is ignored, and the document implies that the ecosystem 

has gotten worse since the original designation of the MBNMS. The document totally ignores the fact that the groundfish stocks (not including hake) are now at 

greater than 50 percent of the estimated unfished biomass and increasing. 

42 

The report argues that ONMS does not regulate fishing in the sanctuary and does 

not consider establishment of MPAs in the MBNMS as tools of fisheries management. This is patently silly. The primary human activity that would be regulated 

by MPAs is fishing, and any establishment of MPAs modifies the fisheries management regime in the MBNMS. The entire document suggest that the primary ecosystem change that has occurred has been in the groundfish stocks, and that fishing 

has been the dominant impact on groundfish. It is thus impossible to separate fisheries management from the status of the ecosystem. 

Sibert, J, Hampton, J, Kleiber, P, and Maunder, M. Biomass, Size, and Trophic 

Status of Top Predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science. 2006;314: 1773–1776. 

BAIT AND SWITCH? FISHERMEN’S DIFFICULT RELATIONSHIP

WITH THE MONTEREY SANCTUARY

With new efforts being made by some community members to gather support for 

an expanded Monterey Sanctuary (MBNMS), or a new ‘‘central coast sanctuary’’, 

claims have been heard that the MBNMS has never broken the well-remembered 

promise made to us fishermen that it would not create regulations that affect us, 

or otherwise threaten our livelihoods. Central coast fishermen have always wanted 

a mutually trusting and respectful relationship with the MBNMS, but we have so 

far been disappointed. I have researched this issue, have spoken with many fishermen, and located reference documents, the results of which are found below. 

First, a little history. 

The condition of the central coast just prior to sanctuary designation in 1992 was 

considered ‘‘pristine’’. This, and the unique feature of the Monterey Canyon, is why 

the northern portion was considered for a sanctuary. This was the case even in the 

context of extensive fisheries having utilized the ocean for the last 100 years. In 

fact, in 1992 in the central coast, just prior to sanctuary designation, there were a 

dozen or more bottom trawl vessels, about 30 purse seine (squid/sardine) vessels, 

and several hundred boats fishing for salmon, crab, albacore, prawns. Now, we have 

only about one-quarter of that number, and these are even more heavily regulated. 

The main public interest in creating a sanctuary was to add another layer of regulation to keep oil development out of the region. 

During the run up to the creation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), regional communities and stakeholders negotiated with NOAA as 

to the role that the Federal Agency would play in the coastal and ocean issues. 

There was great concern over surrendering local control, and the potential for ocean 

policy issues to essentially be run from Washington, D.C. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) played the lead role among the public agencies to sort out these issues. Congressman Leon Panetta also convened a stakeholder leaders group to air out their concerns. Representatives from commercial and 

recreational fishing were key members of the stakeholder group. In 1991 commercial 

fishing was several hundred million dollars a year worth of direct income, but also 

had important cultural roots in several communities. Getting commercial fisherman 

to support a sanctuary was particularly important because there had been two prior 

efforts to create a Monterey area sanctuary, which had been defeated by fishermen. 

We were suspicious of a Federal agency called a ‘‘sanctuary’’—which we felt would 

imply to some protecting everything from everything everywhere—and among other 

restrictions, that the sanctuary would create new regulations making our lives more 

difficult or even putting us out of business. Fishing was already heavily regulated 

by State and Federal fishery management agencies. 

The Designation Document for the sanctuary purposely did not list fishing as an 

activity subject to regulation, or future regulations. The Designation Document is 

essentially the original terms agreed upon by all parties and serves as a foundation 

for sanctuary management. The Designation Document can be changed, but it must 

go through the same process of public hearings and environmental impact analysis 

as did the original designation. This said, there was a past effort on the part of the 

sanctuary program to get Congress to shortcut this process and allow sanctuaries 

to change Designation Documents essentially at will. Fortunately, Congress did not 

do this. 

The agreement that was struck between NOAA (parent agency to the future sanctuary) and fishermen was this: If fishermen agreed to support the creation of a 

sanctuary, the sanctuary would respect the authority of the existing Federal and 

state fishery management agencies. The sanctuary would not manage fisheries, create fishing regulations, or generally take actions that threaten the livelihoods of 

fishermen . . . A powerful statement of this negotiation can be found in the affidavit of Dave Danbom, Leon Panetta’s lead representative for fishing issues. It is 

43 

generally acknowledged that if it had not been for this important agreement made 

with the fishing community, the sanctuary effort would have failed once again. Congressman Panetta is quoted in the San Jose Mercury News (March 16, 2003), saying 

‘‘I think the reason we were able to get such a large consensus (to support a sanctuary) was that I made it clear the sanctuary wasn’t going to represent a whole new 

bureaucracy imposing regulations on fishermen.’’ Letters from Congressman Sam 

Farr, Anna Eshoo, and others, also speak pointedly to this fact. This negotiation and 

agreement are remembered still by many elected and civic leaders, and serves as 

the basis for many community leaders’ continued involvement in holding the Sanctuary to this promise. Many public agencies, such as the City of Morro Bay, the 

Monterey County Board of Supervisors, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, which is made up of elected officials from three counties, the City of Monterey, and the Port San Luis, Moss Landing, and San Mateo County Harbor Districts, have all gone on record as asking the MBNMS to keep its promise made to 

fishermen. Keeping this promise has been a sort of integrity test for the sanctuary 

through the years. 

The Designation Document also contains language that relates to the future for 

fishing issues: ‘‘Should problems arise in the future, NOAA would consult with the 

State, Pacific Fishery Management Council, the State, the National Marine Fishery 

Service, as well as Industry, to determine an appropriate course of action.’’ This 

phrasing opens the door for sanctuary/fishermen discussions on items of mutual interests. Congressman Sam Farr speaks to this point in his thoughtful letter of January 30, 2002. Fishermen were assured by this language and the terms of the Designation Document. We were also assured by our relationship with the older Gulf 

of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. GF Sanctuary Manager Ed Ueber had 

had a positive relationship with the fishing community. If a problem arose, he knew 

exactly who to call, take them out for coffee, discuss it, listen to them, and together 

work out a solution, without the sanctuary imposing fishing regulations or the fishermen feeling threatened. 

Has the sanctuary kept this promise over the past 20 years? Most fishermen 

think that it has not. In recent times senior MBNMS officials have suggested, at 

public meetings, that fishermen were somehow ‘‘confused’’ by what they heard in the 

early 90s—that the promise wasn’t really a promise. This makes us wonder if NOAA 

always intended to try and get around the agreement, as soon as the sanctuary was 

created. Sanctuary officials have also repeatedly claimed that they have never created a fishing regulation, or otherwise harmed the fishing community. Incredibly, 

this is said during the same time period that the MBNMS called for additional 

MPAs—fishing closures. 

In 2008, a legal opinion was sought on the authority, or lack of, for a sanctuary 

to create MPAs. 

There are many specific examples why fishermen feel that the MBNMS has not 

acted in good faith, but only several will be discussed here. One comes from the 

MBNMS revision of its management plan, which began in 2001. Fishermen knew 

that the sanctuary was very interested in marine protected areas (MPAs), which are 

various levels of no fishing zones. It would be the epitome of breaking the promise 

made to fisherman should the sanctuary force MPAs into the region. At the same 

time, most fishermen knew that there is a place for some MPAs in ecosystem-based 

management. To constructively engage in this discussion in a way that would not 

compromise the original agreements, or threaten fishermen, fishermen organized 

and created a MPA working group to discuss this with the sanctuary [ACSF Letter 

to MBNMS 2.2.01]. This working group was led by the fishermen themselves. They 

were comfortable with the process and progress was being made in these discussions 

until sanctuary management decided that it needed to control the process and created its own marine protected area work group, thereby making the fishermen’s 

group ineffective as it had no one to talk to. Fishermen were invited to participate 

in the sanctuary’s MPA working group and did so for nearly five years, but only 

as a minority voice. Ultimately fishermen were so frustrated with the sanctuary 

that they withdrew their support for the working group and the MPA element of 

the sanctuary’s new management plan [MPA Letter to Holly Price MBNMS 2.2.07]. 

Fishermen felt that the MBNMS lacked a scientific basis for the scope of its MPA 

ambitions, and we perceived that the sanctuary itself didn’t even follow the principles of its own MPA plan. During this process, the MBNMS was formally asked 

by the City of Monterey if the culture and heritage of fishing in coastal communities 

were ‘‘resources’’ that the sanctuary was also to protect. The answer: No. [Letter to 

Holly Price and SMPA Workgroup 1.21.05 & MBNMS Response to Letter 1.22.05 

Fishermen also commissioned a number of scientific studies from respected, independent fisheries scientists, and presented these to the sanctuary. However, fishermen feel that the sanctuary has dismissed these studies out of hand. 

44 

When this MPA working group was disbanded in April 2007, without reaching a 

decision, the MBNMS announced that it would take the question of the need for additional protection, meaning more MPAs in Federal waters, directly to its Advisory 

Council. The MBNMS leadership made statements about how much they needed the 

SAC’s advice to help them make this important protection decision. There were a 

series of SAC meetings, with scientists and others making presentations on this 

question. 

Congressman Farr wrote to the MBNMS on this issue. Ultimately, in December 

2007, the SAC voted (but with substantial dissent) to support creating additional 

MPAs in Federal waters. With that ‘‘advice’’ on the record, the MBNMS announced 

on February 15, 2008, that it would pursue additional MPAs. A second letter was 

published April 15, 2008 containing the MBNMS’s attempt to create a scientific rationale. In these letters, the MBNMS attempts to make the case that somehow the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires that the Sanctuary create wilderness 

areas in the sea—areas where no fishing and many other uses would be allowed. 

The attorney for the ACSF wrote to the NOAA and Sanctuary leadership, expressing his legal opinion that the MBNMS lacked legal authority to create these MPAs. 

The City of Monterey also reacted strongly to this MBNMS MPA decision. [Monterey 

City Council Letter to MBNMS 3.27.08] 

Fishermen who had followed this process smelled, to be frank, a dead fish. The 

Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries (ACSF), through its attorney, 

sent a Freedom of Information Act request for information on the MBNMS’s MPA 

decision. At first the Sanctuary Program told the ACSF that it would cost at least 

$9,000 to supply the requested information [FOIA Request Response 11.3.08] Eventually, AMBAG wrote to the Sanctuary program, pointing out that the MPA decision 

was a item of great public interest, and requested a fee waiver. The Sanctuary 

backed down and agreed to provide the information. The information that came in, 

nearly a year after the original request, showed some very alarming things. 

Perhaps most alarming, the official minutes of a June 8, 2008 MBNMS staff meeting , led by the Director of all West Coast Sanctuaries, Bill Douros, show that the 

decision to have more MPAs, and generally where they will be placed, is made six 

months before the MBNMS asks its SAC for its advice to help them make this very 

decision. In the discussion of the need for additional protection through MPAs, Mr. 

Douros is quoted as saying ‘‘We need to see additional protections and know we 

need an extension of the state MPAs’’: It seems clear to us fishermen that the top 

west coast sanctuary program official is making a decision and directing his staff. 

This decision is also made prior to a July 27, 2007 briefing of Congressman Farr 

wherein the MBNMS representatives tell the Congressman of their plan to obtain 

SAC advice in December 2007. So, it seems that the MBNMS used the goodwill of 

the SAC members for it’s own purposes, having already decided the issue. 

It also appears that when the MBNMS made its ‘‘need for MPAs’’ decision public 

on February 15, 2008, it failed to consult with the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council in advance of this decision, as required by the Sanctuary Designation Document and its own regulations. 

To us fishermen, not only is all of this a profoundly disappointing misuse of a 

public process, but it’s also a waste of taxpayer money, and since MPAs are aimed 

to stop fishing in areas, directly harmful to us. This is more than a fishing issue, 

and if public members are concerned about the loss of local control that might come 

with sanctuary designation, they should pay attention to this. 

Another example relates to this in that the State of California began its own MPA 

process in 2005. This was called the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. Fishermen again organized themselves to constructively engage in this process with the 

state and committed themselves to following the science guidelines developed by the 

state, and to have a proposal that met all the goals and objectives required by law. 

The MBNMS was represented during this process. Despite repeated requests from 

the fishermen for the sanctuary to join the fishermen to create an MPA network 

together, the sanctuary led a group of conservation organizations in creating an alternative proposal, which, after some changes, was adopted by the State. Fishermen 

witnessed sanctuary representatives pointing at maps and stating which areas the 

sanctuary wanted to close to fishing. At the end of the State process it got even 

worse when the superintendent of the sanctuary spoke in front of approximately 300 

people, 150 of whom were recreational and commercial fishermen, and told the Fish 

and Game Commission that the state had not gone far enough in its efforts to close 

areas to fishing. This was in spite of the fact that the new closed areas were seriously hurting fishermen, and even creating new safety at sea issues. The superintendent made a specific written proposal to close additional areas in Monterey 

Bay to fishermen. Later, when senior sanctuary staff were discussing the enforcement of the new state MPAs, the West Coast Sanctuary Director commented on how 

45 

the sanctuary could ‘‘trick fishermen’’, who would not realize how fast a new sanctuary boat was. Even though it was not the Sanctuary that created the ultimate 

regulation to close these areas to fishing, fishermen felt utterly betrayed by the 

Sanctuary. The Sanctuary in turn lost a tremendous opportunity to work constructively with the fishing community. 

In 2008 the Regional Director of the West Coast Sanctuaries wrote to the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council expressing his agency’s view that it would seek to ‘‘reduce or eliminate’’ bottom trawling from west coast sanctuaries. This is in spite of 

the fact that bottom trawling is heavily regulated and constrained spatially. In fact, 

approximately 4,000 square miles of the MBNMS is already closed to bottom trawling. Bottom trawling exists primarily over soft-bottom habitats and does not cause 

extensive sea floor damage as once was believed. The fishing community responded 

to the sanctuary in writing, taking to task what was felt was a reckless and ill-informed statement of policy from a senior Sanctuary official. This also feels like a 

clear breech of the agreement made with fishermen. 

Fishermen have also had to fight with sanctuary officials as they have tried to 

dictate who will represent fishermen; that’s another reason why fishermen have formally banded together in the regional organization, The Alliance of Communities for 

Sustainable Fisheries. 

The Sanctuary has currently involved itself in a fishery management-related issue 

by the fact that the National Marine Fishery Service and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) are beginning a required five-year review of Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) areas along the West Coast. EFH are areas of good habitat, considered to be ‘‘essential’’ in certain life stages of fishes. There already exists extensive 

EFH areas. 3.8 million acres along the central coast are already set aside by these 

agencies as essential fish habitat wherein all bottom trawling is prohibited. Additionally, in 2007 the Monterey Bay National Sanctuary was able to close 775 square 

miles along the Davidson Sea Mount off shore Moro Bay to bottom trawling and all 

other bottom contact gear. Nevertheless, the Monterey Sanctuary has expressed its 

intent to develop a proposal for Essential Fish Habitat during this review. It remains 

to be seen whether the Sanctuary will choose to constructively and collaboratively 

work with the fishing community to gain their support for such a proposal. Or conversely, will the sanctuary attempt to create its own EFH proposal, and use its 

‘‘bully pulpit’’ to get the Federal fishery management agencies to give it what it 

wants? If the PFMC does not believe that a Sanctuary request is scientifically justified, there exists the possibility that the Sanctuary would actually change the Designation Document to give itself the authority to regulate fishing, and create its own 

additional special closures. This would be the ultimate violation of the promise 

made to fishermen. The fishing community very much hopes that they will abide 

by its promise both to the letter and in the spirit in which it was made, create constructive relationships with the fishing community, and move forward in a truly cooperative manner. 

Fishermen from the west coast and in other parts of the Nation have observed 

what has unfolded with the Monterey Sanctuary’s relationship with the fishing community. It is safe to say that a great majority are extremely suspicious and resistive 

of sanctuary designations for their areas. The MBNMS is widely seen as an agency 

that either doesn’t base its decisions on science, or cherry-picks the science, has significant issues in its public processes, and has broken its promise made to us, in 

the spirit it was made. 

Some people may feel that the sanctuary does need to protect living sanctuary resources from fishermen and perhaps feel that over-fishing and habitat destruction 

are occurring. This is not the case. The West Coast of the United States and specifically Central California is the most highly protected and regulated area in the 

world. [‘‘Rebuilding Global Fisheries’’, 2009]. Through the actions of the State Department of Fish and Game, the Fish and Game Commission, the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, fisheries are managed through a science-based process called Fishery Management Plans. These 

plans aim at both providing conservation benefits for habitats, and also assure sustainability of the fish stocks. Additionally, other Federal laws such as the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, the Seabird Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, 

and others, have provided lasting protection for mammals and birds and have directly resulted in the growth of those animals. It is not Sanctuary designation that 

protects these fish and animals, it is existing Federal and State law that does so. 

Other state laws, such as the Marine Life Protection Act, gave the central coast over 

30 MPAs in state waters. Over four thousand square miles of the Sanctuary are already protected, through the actions of other agencies, in various forms of MPAs. 

The central coast is well protected already. 

46 

The MBNMS has made some gestures to create goodwill with us fishermen. A 

‘‘put a fisherman in a classroom’’ program was created by the MBNMS, and it has 

been a great thing to have fishermen talk to young people about how they produce 

food. Also, the Sanctuary has used an experienced Moss Landing fisherman to help 

recover lost fishing gear off the seafloor. This project has been a collaborative effort, 

with the MBNMS staff wanting to learn from the fisherman. These are good things, 

and are appreciated. 

To conclude, in 1992, upon hearing the assurances that we didn’t need to worry 

about the new sanctuary threatening our livelihoods, fishermen actively supported 

the creation of the MBNMS. Fishing representatives went to Washington, D.C. to 

lobby Congressional support. We wanted then what we still want: a good relationship with the MBNMS, collaborative research, improved water quality, and the ban 

on oil and gas development. We also want the MBNMS to uphold the promise made 

to us in the spirit in which it was made. 

TOM ROTH

02–20–15 SANCTUARY LETTER

Well, the sanctuary question is back on the table. This issue seems to arise every 

few years since Monterey got their sanctuary. This one is in the form of the 

Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. The commercial fishermen in our 

county are unanimously against it, and we have spoken to various sport fishing 

groups and have yet to find any one of these groups in support of a sanctuary in 

our area. 

The sanctuary issue is a very big concern, not only for the fishing industry, but 

the entire county. This is an issue that should not be taken lightly. When we invite 

the Federal Government to take over control of our resources, we, meaning our communities, will lose the ability to manage our beaches, our ocean, our ports and our 

harbors. 

The cost to communities for additional Federal regulations governing areas such 

as run off and discharges, currently administered by local and state government, 

will increase dramatically. These costs will severely impact our harbors and ports, 

increasing the difficulty for projects necessary for their operations, such as, dredging, soil samples, construction of docks and slips, as well as maintaining structures 

that are currently in place. Once we take on these additional layers of bureaucracy 

and find out in the future about the problems it causes, we will not be able to turn 

back. 

Proponents of the National Marine Sanctuary issue have proclaimed there will be 

no loss of local control. Unfortunately, this is not true as ‘‘National Marine Sanctuary’’ clearly implies management will not be local but rather at the Federal level. 

California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference, or C–MANC, is a group of 

all of California’s harbors and the cities affiliated with those harbors. This group 

encompasses the area from San Diego to Crescent City, the entire length of our 

state, and deals directly in many of these areas with National Marine Sanctuaries, 

such as the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the Cordell Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary, and the Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary. 

C–MANC has issued a legislative policy statement concerning marine sanctuaries, 

which consists of a list of five problems. Some of those problems include disposal 

of dredge materials, and requirements to the already burdensome Federal and state 

processes, vessel traffic, fishing regulations, either direct or indirect, and general 

maintenance issues. And finally, C–MANC’s legislative policy reads: ‘‘C–MANC recommends suspending the expansion of existing sanctuaries until the problems identified above are resolved.’’ We should remember these are the representatives of 

their respective areas, many who are living under the umbrella of the National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Our county, cities, towns, and commercial and sport fishermen have long been 

very outstanding stewards of our ocean. We work with many state, Federal and environmental groups, as well as universities and colleges. The Central Coast has 

been the ‘‘poster child’’ of how to do things right in many discussions and meetings 

held in California, on the East Coast as well as our Nation’s capital, Washington, 

D.C. And finally, it is important to remember the amount of fishing grounds closed 

to some form of fishing, those include Marine Protected Areas, Essential Fish Habitat Areas, and Rock Cod Conservation Areas. I think we can be very proud of our 

stewardship of the Central Coast. 

I guess I just love the Central Coast, and when my wife and I step outside and 

look around, we remind ourselves every single day of what we have here. We do 

47 

not think additional layers of bureaucracy would be in the best interest or add to 

the beauty of this area. 

JEREMIAH O’BRIEN, 

Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization. 

02–21–15 LETTER TO BILL DOUROS, 

DIRECTOR OF WEST COAST NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES

Mr. Douros, 

RE: Oppose: Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary 

Re: ‘‘Chumash nominates coast for sanctuary status’’. Despite the tone given to 

the article, as people get beyond the fluff of the name sanctuary, there will be significant agency and stakeholder opposition. Having a new Federal agency own our 

resources will add another unwelcome level of Federal regulation. The sanctuary 

program officials say this about local stakeholder interests: 

‘‘The fact is that sanctuary values are a national resource. Those who use the 

resource have no more right to expect the continued use of the resource than 

one who is not a direct user of the resource and wants that resource to be conserved.’’ (NOAA publication ‘‘Valuing our National Marine Sanctuaries’’, Wiley, 

2003). Recreational and commercial fishermen, divers, growers, agencies with 

ocean infrastructure, ocean-front property owners, all should be concerned. Even 

the sovereign Native American Tribes in the Pacific Northwest have expressed 

deep concern about sanctuary management. 

MARCH 12, 2015, LETTER TO THE EDITOR

The Chumash National Marine Sanctuary proposal as submitted by Fred Collins 

from the northern Chumash Tribal Council was rejected on March 6, 2015, by the 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. It appears the reasons were lack of information and incomplete data on the application. In the letter of rejection it seems to 

encourage them to resubmit their proposal. Many of us have been trying to educate 

the public as to why it is not a good idea to turn over our ocean and beaches to 

Federal control. We, therefore, will look at this situation as a temporary setback for 

them and continue educating the public as to the many problems associated with 

a National Sanctuary system. We will be interested in the content of the new proposal as the rejection letter described many of its deficiencies in the area of management. This is the area that has many of us here on the Central Coast concerned. 

Losing or giving up control of our resources to Federal management would be a 

shame. We believe our community is the best manager and steward or our coast, 

and our past performance speaks for itself. We only have to walk outside our door, 

take a deep breath, look around, and realize we have done well, and we will continue that tradition on our own. 

JEREMIAH O’BRIEN, 

Director, 

Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization. 

06–12–16 LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF TELEGRAM TRIBUNE

THE SANCTUARY ISSUE: 

The Chumash Sanctuary continues to go on and on even when the one and only 

legitimately recognized Chumash tribe sent a scathing letter to Lois Capps for her 

support of the proposed sanctuary. This letter was signed by Kenneth Kahn, the 

Chumash tribal leader and chairman. It stands to reason, then, that support for a 

Chumash Sanctuary that is not supported by the Chumash tribe, coupled with our 

current Congress person, who obviously does not support the tribe, goes to show 

that the needs and wishes of the tribe continue to be ignored by many. 

If the Federal Government wants to do something for the Chumash, or any other 

tribe, they would address the real needs of the people and not put some gratuitous 

name on a marine protected area that will be no help at all to the real wants and 

needs of tribal members. 

As a longtime fisherman on the Central Coast, I believe our ocean and shoreline 

is as near perfect as anywhere on earth. Therefore, I cannot understand why people 

think that bringing the Federal Government here will improve our coast. I have to 

48 

reflect on exactly what it is that the Federal Government has improved for us lately. 

I guess it goes back to the old adage, ‘‘IF IT’S NOT BROKEN, PLEASE DO NOT 

TRY TO FIX IT.’’ We have been doing fine, folks. Support local control. 

JEREMIAH O’BRIEN, 

MBCFO 

12–16–16 LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE TELEGRAM TRIBUNE

Since November, the Sierra Club, as well as Surfrider and EcoSlo, have had fullpage ads in the Telegram Tribune telling of what to expect, in their opinion, from 

a sanctuary in our area. 

They indicated sums of money the sanctuary generated annually from commercial 

fishing and jobs in the commercial fishing industry that sanctuaries support. As a 

member of the fishing community for 37 years here on the Central Coast, I know 

what they have written is unequivocally false. 

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 1992 guaranteed us and made 

it part of their designation document (contract) that they would not manage fisheries. The sanctuary had multiple infractions of this rule in which they helped to 

close many areas to commercial fishing in flagrant disregard for our contractual 

agreement. The most recent of which I spoke to at the Pacific Fisheries Management Council meeting. 

The commercial fishing industry does not have the resources to buy full-page ads 

in our local paper. Please look at our website, www.opccoalition.com, to get an honest review of the sanctuaries. 

Please do not give up local control and management to the Federal Government. 

We have all been doing a wonderful job of stewardship. 

JEREMIAH O’BRIEN, 

MBCFO. 

49 

ATTACHMENT


627OPCC1.eps

December 16, 2016 

Mr. John Asmor, Director 

NOAA Of!'ICe of National Marine Sanctuaries 

1305 East.West Highway, 11111 Floor 

Silver Spring, MO 20910 

sanctuaries@noaa.gov 

FROM fARM TO liARBOR 

RE: Remove lhe Chumash NMS proposal from lhe S~e Evaluation List 

Dear Director Armor, 

We are wr ing on behaij of lhe Our Protected Coast Coat~ion (OPCC), wllich was formed to 

provide a unilied voice of opposition to lhe nomination of lhe Central Coast of Caifornia as a 

"Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctual)"'. 

On October 21 , 2016, membefs of OPCC provided public testimony to lhe Monterey Bay National Marine Sanetuaoy's Advisory Counei. detailing the strength of opposition 10 the 

Chumash Her~ge NMS proposal Speakers puzzled alood how you eould have claimed, as you did In your October 6, 201Siener, that lhere Is evldenee of •broad eommunily support• for 

the Chumash nomination. At minimum, you were misinformed on this point, or you chose to 

disregard the significant opposition. As you must know, our organization has submitted a 

FreedOm of Information Aet request for information about how lhe Offiee of National Marine 

Sanctuaries eame to make sueh a flawed determination of ·broad eonvnunily support•. 

AlOng whh several hundred loeal eit¢ens and Individual small businesses. the following elected 

olf>eials, ageneles. and organizations. have g011e on reeord as opposing the Chumash NMS 

nomination: 

Tribes: 

• Santa Ynez Band of Chumash lndians-1tle federally-recognized Tribe 

• Salinan Tribe of Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties 

Elected Offic:ials: 

• Carlfomia State Assemblyman Kateho Aehadjian 

• Grover Beaeh Mayor John Shoals 

• Pismo Beaeh Mayor Shelly Higginbotham 

Former Morro Bay Mayors Janice Peters, Bil Yates, and Rodger Anderson 

• San Luis Obispo County Board of Supe<visors Lynn Comp1011. Debbie Amold, and 

Supervisor-Eieet John Pesehong 

Our Protected Coast Coa ~ion- PO Box 323, Morro Bay, CA 93443 
50 


627OPCC2.eps

FROM FARM TO HARBOR 

• Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Peter Adam and Steve Lavagnilo 

• Former Congresswoman Andrea Seastrand 

Agencle$: 

Port San Luis HarbOr District, Resolution # 1 5..08 

• City of Morro Bay, Resolution#'s 00-36: 01-15; 03-27; and 12-18 

• Morro Bay HarbOr Advisory Committee 

Organizations: 

• San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 

Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce 

Coalition of Labor, Agriculture, and Busiless of San luis Obispo County 

• Coal~ion of Labor. Agriculture, and Boslness of Santa Barbara County 

• PacifiC Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association$-lhe largest commercial roshlng 

organization on the west coast 

• Recreational Fishing Allianoe-U>e largest recreational fiShing organization In the US 

• Alliance of Communities for SustaJnable Fisheries-a 501-c-3 organlzaUon representing 

commercial and reeteational rrshlng for six Central Coast port oommun~ies 

Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen's Association 

Port San Luis Commercial Fishermen's Association 

Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara 

Southern California Trawler's Association 

• Morro Bay Community Quota Fund 

California Salmon Council 

Arroyo Grande Sportsman's CluD 

• San Luis ODispo County Canlemen's Association 

Forest Preservation Society 

Calffornia Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference-<epresenting all CA port&, 

including the very largest 

• calffornia Association of HarbOnnasters and Port Captains-a 68 year old professional 

organization of mostly public agencMls 

• RepuDiican Party of San Luis Obispo County 

11 is likely that this list will continue to grow. 

As you wil surely recognize. these officials, agencies, and organizations represent many 

thousands of supporters and constituents. Some on this fist appreciate some of the bone ~s that may come with a NMS designation, while also eating for certain key Changes in the sanetuary 

program before support can be lent. Some see this Issue as divisive, ~h a much broader level 

of support needed. Most. lnclu<l"g roshing people and ot11er resource users. question the need 

Our Protected Coast Coal~ion- PO Box 323, Morro Bay, CA 93443 
51 


627OPCC3.eps

FROM FARM TO HAR(IOR 

ror runher rederal oversight when so many le<feraland state laws protect and manage our 

ocean resou~s. Most also are unimpressed with NMS transparency and public involvement In 

management decisions. 

Please realize, Mr. Armor, lhal your decision to disregard lhe public opposition 10 crea~ng a new 

rederal bureaU<:tacy-a NMS-<>verseelng our precious ooastal waters. consl~utes lhe Central Coasfs first taste or what sanctuary management will be like ror local c~izens. 

Please remove the Chumash-or any olher Central Coast or Cal~orn6-NMS proposal rrom lhe Site Evaluation List. 

Sincerely, 

T

~~ om Harer 

President 

Monro Bay Commen:lal Fishermen's Assn. 

~~--k-- Oovid Kirk 

Chairman 

Pon San Luis Harbor Commission 

_.. fl./ 

I--/ j/C-""'- Butch Pow01S President 

Pon San Luis Commercial Fishermen Org. 

;. /t, 

Jeremiah O'Brien 

Past President Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen's Assn. 

CC: Wdliam Oouros, NOAA West Coast Region, National Marine Sanctuaries 

Congressman Kevin McCarthy 

Congressman-Elect Salud Carbajal 

Cler1< or the San Luis Obispo County Board or SupeiVIsors 

Steve Lavagnino, Santa Barbara County SupeiVisor 

Peter Adam, Santa Barbara County SupeNisor 

Janel WOlr. San1a Barbara County Supervisor 

PJ Webb, Monterey Bay National Marine SanctuaJY Advisory Council Chair 

Our Protected Coast Coalrtion- PO Box 323, Morro Bay, CA 93443 
52 

02–05–17 LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE TELEGRAM TRIBUNE

Many Thanks to the County Board Members that Support the Fishermen: 

Many thanks to the County Board members that support the fishermen, ranchers, 

farmers, and our ports and harbor districts in SLO county regarding the Chumash 

Heritage National Marine Sanctuary issue. The supervisors that did not support us 

claimed that this was about oil. This issue has nothing to do with oil. It has to do 

with the livelihoods of those of us that make our living on land and sea. We are 

here to protect our livelihoods from Federal intrusion and nothing more. One of the 

supervisors claimed they would not manage fisheries. Well, I can assure the public 

that he nor anyone in our county will be making that decision. It will be made in 

Washington, D.C. just like all of the hundreds of other rules that will be made regarding all national sanctuary management. Federal rules are not made by cities, 

counties, or states. They are made only by the Federal Government. 

JEREMIAH O’BRIEN, 

Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Captain O’Brien, and we will submit for the record all of your written testimony in addition to your 

oral testimony. 

I would now like to turn to Vice Admiral Lautenbacher for his 

5-minute opening statement. 

Sir, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL 

CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER JR., FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Peters and distinguished members of the Committee, as 

well as staff. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

I’d like to go back to the bigger picture for just a minute as we 

move on, and these comments that I’ve heard are very disturbing 

to me, having been in this hearing room a number of times and not 

heard these kinds of things. So, you know, this is the blue planet. 

We depend on the ocean, the ocean we came from. This is what 

supports us. Twenty percent of the protein for the world comes 

from the ocean, and the ocean needs to be healthy. The ocean is 

not healthy right now, and I include the Great Lakes in that. The 

Great Lakes have issues, too, in terms of pollution and species and 

closed beaches, et cetera. So we have the need to maintain, to bring 

this ocean back. 

As we increase the number of people on this planet—there’ll be 

9 billion to 10 billion pretty soon in a couple of generations—we 

need to feed them, we need to clothe them, we need to house them, 

we need to do a lot of things. So we have to take into account a 

whole bunch and range of things to do. 

Now, the Sanctuary Program is a vehicle—it was created by Congress, and it’s perfectly right and fitting that Congress review it 

and reauthorize it as necessary, because things change, and this is 

a very difficult area. When I first sat in this room to be sworn in, 

it never occurred to me how much time I would spend on fisheries 

as the head of NOAA, and I assure you that the head of NOAA 

spends maybe more than 50 or 60 percent of the time on fisheries, 

and what you heard here is one of the reasons and why it’s important, why it’s very, very important. So we need to figure out how 

to do this correctly. 

53 

Now, the concept of marine sanctuaries is a very good one. The 

idea is trying to have sustainability but yet take into account all 

of the kinds of things that we need to have a viable society, that’s 

economically viable, that’s going to be sustainable, et cetera, that 

supports the local people who live and work and need those areas 

desperately. So I support whatever can do that, and I spent a lot 

of time trying to do it, and I’m sure the people who followed me 

did it as well. So I’m there on that. 

Now, in terms of the designation of it, this is a process that is 

very thorough. It doesn’t mean it can’t be corrected or changed. It 

should always be reviewed. If there are some things you can do to 

make it more streamlined and more, shall we say, brokered in a 

way that everyone considers fair, that would be certainly a good 

thing to work on. But the fact is that the way we have it today, 

it takes a long time to create a sanctuary. The processes that 

NOAA set up, even to nominate somebody to even be considered— 

that wasn’t in the process when I was the head of NOAA, and I 

required people to have really good reason if they were going to 

come in and have a new sanctuary. It had to be ecosystem, fisheries—you had to go through the science, and, hopefully, that’s still 

being done. 

But that kind of rigor is needed, and I think that NOAA’s new 

process does that, because it requires the community come in with 

all their information and bring the whole community together, 

which includes the fishermen as well as the environmentalist and 

the economic developers of the area. So let me stop on that for a 

minute. 

The economic value has been proven. This is $8 billion of development that occurs, and salaries and fallout, if you want to call it, 

the secondary effects in the areas that have marine sanctuaries. 

And, by and large, when I’ve talked to sanctuaries—I admit I 

haven’t talked lately, because I left in 2008. So, anyway, the people 

that lived in those areas liked the sanctuaries, and they liked the 

system where they participated. Fishermen were on the boards. 

They had participation before rules were changed. 

And I might point out that according to what the group told me 

today, there are only five sanctuaries that actually have additions 

to fisheries rules that haven’t been already put in place by the National Marine Fishery Service from the Magnuson-Stevens. So 

that’s good. 

With that, let me close. I’m running out of time. I thank you, sir, 

for your—and I have written testimony for you. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Lautenbacher follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR., FORMER

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the role 

that National Marine Sanctuaries play in marine conservation and the nomination 

and designation process for these sanctuaries. 

As requested I will also include comments on the coordination between the Sanctuary Program and Fishery Management Councils, the role of stakeholders, the new 

nomination process for sanctuaries, and the contribution of sanctuaries to the economy. 

54 

National Marine Sanctuaries and Conservation 

As a short preamble to the specific topics requested, I emphasize that a major 

purpose of the programs under question is to contribute to the maintenance of a 

healthy ocean including the Great Lakes. The ocean today is not healthy; much 

more needs to be accomplished to reverse the course of decline that has occurred 

over the last century or more. The worldwide rates of decrease in diversity and 

quantity of fish stocks, the increasing acidity of the ocean, the proliferation of marine debris, particularly plastics, and the destruction of coastal estuarine areas that 

provide protection and habitat for the human race and their economies around the 

world are alarming, and require our highest priority to reverse. At the same time, 

the world population is increasing rapidly to levels which could easily top 9–10 billion within the next two generations. 

National Marine Sanctuaries play a major role in stemming this decline and with 

increased support can play a major role in actually reversing the downward trend. 

Managed protected areas have been proven to restore fish populations where depletion has already occurred. Their example in fostering economically beneficial conservation can serve as a model to the world. 

Designation 

Congress emphasized in the creation of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) that the legislation was to allow for multiple uses in the ocean. It was purposely intended to allow compatible, multiple uses of the ocean suited to the needs 

of stakeholders and delivering economic benefit while conserving the resources. In 

essence, Congress intended through the NMSA to create a management system for 

the entire marine environment that balanced conservation and human activities 

sustainably. 

The NMSA created National Marine Sanctuaries to consist of special areas in marine and Great Lakes waters that protect nationally significant natural, historical, 

and cultural resources. NOAA manages 13 national marine sanctuaries tailored to 

the areas of coverage by each to preserve and ensure that invaluable ecological services will be maintained in perpetuity for future generations. Note that a healthy 

ocean is the basis for thriving recreation, tourism, and many other diverse commercial activities that drive coastal and national economies. 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 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. 

The designation process is long and complex, designed to be an extensive public 

activity, including robust community engagement, stakeholder involvement, and citizen participation. 

There are four phases: 

Scoping including the announcement of intent to designate; 

Sanctuary proposal with draft management plan and an Environmental Impact 

Statement; 

Public Review to consider all input, including among others, Congress, regional 

fishery councils, and local governments; 

Sanctuary Designation which sets forth the final decision and includes the final 

organizational documents. 

This entire process is complex, and is inclusive, involves many meetings, reviews, 

formation of a community based Advisory Council, setting up a local office, and fully 

engaging the community, as well as national organizations with local interests. It 

is a process that routinely takes years to complete. 

Nomination 

It should be noted that the process just described details how a Sanctuary is designated as such according to the NMSA. There is also a process initiated in 2014 

for ‘‘nominating’’ candidates for ‘‘designation’’ as a National Marine Sanctuary. Be 

aware, they are very different processes. There are six steps in nomination process, 

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

Step 1. A community builds a nomination, and every nomination begins at the 

community level. 

Step 2. The community submits the nomination to NOAA after gathering the 

necessary information. 

55 

Step 3. NOAA provides an initial review and may decline or return to the community for additional information. 

Step 4. NOAA takes a close look at nominations that met Step 3 goals and may 

bring in outside reviews as well as work with the community to answer any 

questions that arise. This is serious and comprehensive vetting for meeting all 

the parameters of a viable Marine Sanctuary. 

Step 5. Nomination is accepted if step 4 successful. 

Step 6. Nominated area is added to the inventory of potential candidates for 

designation at some time in the future. 

To date, there have been: 

2 nominations declined by NOAA, 

5 nominations accepted and added to the inventory, and 2 nominations selected 

for entry into Sanctuary designation: 

Mallows Bay—Potomac River (Maryland, Potomac River) and Lake Michigan 

(Wisconsin). 

Economic Benefit 

National Marine Sanctuaries bring significant overall economic benefit to the Nation. Across all national marine sanctuaries, about $8 billion annually is generated 

in local and ocean dependent economies from diverse activities including among others: commercial fishing, research, recreation, and tourism-related activities. 

One small example of economic activity: between 2010 and 2012, there were on 

average, 

$155.6 million in spending for recreational fishing in the four California national 

marine sanctuaries. The spending generated, with multiple impacts, $213 million in 

output, $129 million in value-added (gross regional product), and $74.6 million in 

income, which supported 1,376 jobs in the coastal counties of California. 

Additional detailed examples of the extensive economic impact of Sanctuaries can 

be found on the NOAA website, http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/socioeconomic. 

But the bottom line is that National Marine Sanctuaries provide a very significant 

economic benefit to the stakeholders in the regions in which they operate. And 

thanks to the NMSA, stakeholder representatives serve on the advisory boards that 

contribute directly to sustainable management of our natural resources. Also significantly contributing to the local and regional connections are the local sanctuary 

management offices staffed with knowledgeable people who live in the area. 

Sanctuaries and Fishing Regulation 

The regulation of fishery resources in national marine sanctuaries is a collaborative process, where sanctuary managers work with other fishery managers in the 

region to ensure that these important resources are protected. The NMSA provides 

sufficient authority to regulate fisheries and fishing activities as necessary to address specific issues at a particular sanctuary. Any such regulation would be developed in cooperation with appropriate state and Federal authorities as well as fishery 

management councils. 

By and large, fishing regulations in most of the sanctuaries are enacted by other 

government or state agencies. These rules have been, and continue to be evaluated 

to ensure they meet the requirements of the NMSA. Additional regulations are put 

in place only after consultation with all parties involved, including the relevant 

Fishery Management Council (FMC). There are only five such situations: Monitor 

(NC), Florida Keys, Flower Garden Banks (TX), Channel Islands (CA), and Gray’s 

Reef (GA). In Federal waters, the relevant FMC would be given the opportunity to 

prepare draft sanctuary regulations to start the process. In the end however, if 

these rules were not sufficient, and all mediation failed to resolve differences, NOAA 

would be required to prepare rules that conform to all national regulatory guidance. 

Marine National Monuments 

NOAA’s Office of Marine Sanctuaries also manages two marine national monuments. Papahanaumokuakea and Rose marine national monuments. Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument was the outcome of what began as a sanctuary 

designation process in 2000 and then changed by President Bush declaring it a 

monument under the Antiquities Act in 2006. While not being managed under the 

full force of NMSA, the intense work accomplished at the stakeholder level locally 

and nationally created a strong majority coalition of organizations and citizens that 

strongly supported the President’s action. The monument was then further expanded by President Obama. 

56 

In 2009, President Bush established Rose Atoll in American Samoa as a Marine 

National Monument and directed Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary to begin 

developing a management plan to incorporate the area into the sanctuary. In 2012, 

at the culmination of a sanctuary management review process, NOAA expanded the 

sanctuary to include the area at Rose Atoll Marine National Monument. It should 

be noted that President Bush at the same time in 2009 also designated a long list 

of Pacific Ocean waters surrounding atolls and islands as marine national monuments, significantly increasing the areas in the Pacific under special protection. 

President Obama also expanded these areas as well. 

My congratulations to both Presidents Bush and Obama and past Congresses for 

their bipartisan support of National Marine Sanctuaries and the protection of our 

marine resources for all Americans to enjoy! 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, thank you. This is an outstanding group 

in terms of differing views. So I want to dig into some of the questions. 

First, there’s a lot of focus on just a local input, local stakeholder 

input, and, Mr. Weiss, you talked about the PEER proposal, which 

I think, you know, in a lot of our views, that’s kind of the worst 

case scenario, where you have a group that’s not from Alaska, for 

example, making a NOAA proposal to lock up tens of thousands of 

square miles of the ocean. Fortunately, I think, as you mentioned, 

the process worked there. 

But what I really wanted to touch on in terms of questions really 

for all the panelists is the integration of a sanctuaries designation 

and what goes into it, particularly in terms of rigorous science and 

data, and how that intersects or either trumps or oversteps with 

regard to the well-established Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Council 

process, which—I think pretty much everybody here noted—works 

in a very collaborative, stakeholder, science-based approach. 

I just want kind of your views, starting with Mr. Weiss, how you 

see these things working together or maybe not working together, 

and what more can we do? Because I think the Councils under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act have a long track record of science-based 

sustainable management. They certainly do in Alaska. But what’s 

the integration here with sanctuaries, and how do we balance what 

you said, Captain Hickman, the balance in the stakeholder input, 

which is very front and center on Magnuson-Stevens, but might be 

lacking in the sanctuary’s designation? 

I’ll open that up to all four of you, because I think all of you 

touched on it in your testimony, starting with Mr. Weiss. 

Mr. WEISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know about the North 

Pacific Council process and I know that all their work is about balancing those 10 national standards. They use the NEPA process 

and the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Dangerous Species 

Act. I don’t know that the Sanctuaries Act employs all those. Perhaps the other gentlemen do know that, but—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. I don’t think it does, which is part of the challenge. 

Mr. WEISS. Well, I believe that the Council process is working 

and should be the controlling authority on this. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Captain Hickman? 

Mr. HICKMAN. Yes, sir. Thank you. I’ll address your question in 

two parts. First off, you know, I look at the National Marine Sanctuary as like Yellowstone National Park. I mean, to be a National 

Marine Sanctuary, it needs to be a one-of-a-kind place. And, you 

know, what is nationally significant? I think that’s the question 

57 

when we start going and diving into a lot of this. The Flower Garden Banks are nationally significant. There’s no place like it. It’s 

an amazing place. 

Two, as far as stakeholder input or stakeholder involvement, to 

get to that point, we’ve got to have the ability for the local folks, 

the volunteers, the people from industry to be able to have some 

type of weight in the recommendations. Currently, like with the 

Flower Garden Banks, we had a recommendation that would work 

for all the user groups—oil and gas, fishing, diving, all these 

folks—and the agency went with something totally different, and it 

would be similar to Yellowstone National Park coming in and saying, ‘‘You know what? We’re going to draw a buffer zone 20 miles 

out from Yellowstone National Park into these ranches, and we’re 

not going to let you do anything in there, even though it’s your— 

it’s the property of the people or the property of the country.’’ 

That’s what we’ve got to have. We’ve got to have grassroots folks 

that have a say-so in this. Currently, the way that the Act is, we 

don’t have the ability, or we don’t have—our voice doesn’t have a 

weight. We can recommend something, but then they go and do 

something totally different, like what just happened with the Flower Garden Banks expansion. We want to expand that Flower Garden Banks into these other areas, but we want to do it right in a 

way that stakeholders can live with it, and that’s not the way it 

happened. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Captain O’Brien, do you have any sense, 

again, on the question of MSA, and same to you, Admiral, I’ll pose 

that. It’s a really critical question here. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. In our experience, the Monterey Bay, particularly, 

as well as the Channel Islands, have used their influence and their 

direct participation in creating no-fishing areas. Now, in the 

state—the state was determined to create some no-fishing areas 

along the coast of California and extends the entire coast nearly 

1,000 miles. So there’s a staggered group of no-fishing areas along 

the coast now, implemented by the state but influenced by the 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, particularly. 

They use their influence and participated—I have a letter here 

from them thanking the state for their participation—I believe it 

was included in your packets—and in that five times. In the very 

first page of the letter, they said, ‘‘Thank you for your participation.’’ But when they were closing these areas—the Blue Ribbon 

Task Force, which is in charge of designing these particular areas 

for the coast, for our section of the coast—the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary indicated that it was not strict enough. 

They needed more. 

So they did, and they were successful in closing even more areas 

to both recreational and commercial fishing, which, in numerous— 

I can’t tell you the ways that it—we, by the way, did participate 

in that. Myself and a very good friend of my wife, in particular, 

participated in that and designed some of our own creations. We 

ended up losing a massive amount of productive area. 

The ocean is very vast, as everybody here knows, but certain 

areas are very productive, and certain areas are non-productive 

and always will be because of the—just like the land. You know, 

58 

desert doesn’t have a lot of wildlife, although it has some very good 

wildlife, and the ocean is very much the same. 

So, in any case, our success with acting with the sanctuaries has 

been nearly zero. The Sanctuary Council, which is an advisory— 

and I highlight that word—to the sanctuary itself, is all—except 

certain positions such as area harbor masters and so forth—it’s all 

appointed positions. 

Well, in one instance, for example, we were appointing a very 

lovely lady, Kathy Fosmark. We, the fishing industry, supported 

Kathy for the fishing seat, and that position was opposed because 

the Sanctuary Director did not feel that she really represented the 

fishing industry. Well, Kathy’s two children are fishermen, her husband is a fisherman, her dad is a fisherman, and she was supported by every fishing group in the state. But they said they didn’t 

feel she really supported the fishing industry. We did finally get 

her in after going to many lengths, politically and so forth, to twist 

the arm of the Director. So this is just one of the many, many 

cases. But we have had very, very poor luck in talking to them. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Admiral, any thoughts real quick? I’m going 

to turn it over to Senator Peters here for his questions, but just on 

that—you were at NOAA—that integration of the MSA and sanctuaries designation—very important, critical, really, that Congress 

take a look at it. But what are your thoughts on that? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, I spent a lot of time on Magnuson-Stevens, too, and it’s a challenge. But the bill that we have 

today that we worked on and is in force is doing well. So I’m a big 

supporter of Magnuson-Stevens as it is. The Secretary of Commerce also has the same authority to appoint people to the fisheries councils, so, kind of, the buck stops at that point. 

But the fact is, cutting to the chase, that the way it’s set up now, 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act gives them control over the 

fisheries, so they can—they trump whatever the fisheries—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. So it’s a kind of veto power over the MSA 

process? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, if they can’t come to an agreement, 

et cetera, and they try hard to talk and back and forth, back and 

forth, and in the end, they can’t come to it. I had a couple of situations like that and was able to arbitrate—mediate. I put mediate. 

I got both people to agree in a couple of cases where they could 

manage what they—you know, both sides agree. 

But there are differences, and at some point, you have to have 

somebody that’s authoritative that makes—or some process that 

makes it. So I will tell you that that is a difficult challenge in 

working it. The laws don’t always mesh. They have various twists 

and turns in them, and that’s one of them, and you’re hearing the 

results of it today. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Senator Peters. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Lautenbacher, I want to follow up on some of the comments that you have made. First, I want to thank you for your 

service as both a naval officer and as a former NOAA administrator. I appreciate your service to your country. 

59 

In your testimony, you talk a great deal about the extensive public process, robust community involvement, from all sectors, all 

sorts of stakeholders. I mentioned that briefly in my comments 

from my experience in seeing what happened up in Thunder Bay 

in Michigan. 

You mentioned the authorization over fisheries, but it’s my understanding that there’s a process before it gets to the sanctuaries, 

that there’s—would you elaborate on whether or not that’s really 

something that a sanctuary is going to do, to take over that kind 

of fishing regulation? Or where would that be in the process? Walk 

me through that. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Well, the Magnuson-Stevens rules 

apply, to start with, and the sanctuary gives—marine sanctuaries 

hierarchy or, you know, bureaucracy provides the opportunity for 

the fishery people to set what they want and set the draft rules, 

so to speak, the draft rules that—— 

Senator PETERS. They get the first bite at the apple? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. They have the first bite at the apple, 

the draft rules, and then it’s looked at by the sanctuary people, and 

if it’s not enough, then they go back, and they talk and they talk 

and they talk, back and forth, back and forth. So it can go on for 

quite a while. Generally speaking, it comes to a conclusion, and, obviously, I haven’t been around since 2008, so there are some things 

that are going on today that maybe haven’t reached what I would 

call an amicable solution from both parties. 

Senator PETERS. But from your experience, the attempt is to 

find—the parties to come together—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The attempt is to bring people together, 

and the attempt is to make sure before it even gets started that 

you have the basis on which to make a decision, make a decision 

that people agree to. 

Senator PETERS. Which is the quote that I gave from the Commerce Secretary, that unless you have all the local stakeholders together, a marine sanctuary is not likely to be successful. This is not 

about railroading folks. It’s about trying to bring everybody together—— 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, sir. It is. 

Senator PETERS.—to embrace the concept. And, usually, there is 

opposition on the front end, as we had in Michigan. But over time, 

those agreements are made, and folks hopefully see the success of 

the sanctuary if it is, indeed, successful. 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. That’s why it takes years to create a 

sanctuary, actually. 

Senator PETERS. Right. This is a very long and laborious process. 

Captain O’Brien, your comments about Monterey—I want to 

have you elaborate on those, if you would, please, sir. It’s my understanding that Monterey Bay has done work to promote commercial fishing. They’ve created a seafood cooperative called Real Good 

Fish. They’re creating world histories on fishing tradition, implementing education programs, and, to my understanding, they have 

never promulgated any fishing regulation. Is that accurate? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Congressman Peters, that is absolutely not accurate as far as regulation goes. 

60 

Senator PETERS. As far as the sanctuary—now, I understand the 

state of California and the Marine Fishery Service—that they were 

the ones that did these regulations. It wasn’t the sanctuary itself? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. No, the sanctuary actively participated. Now, I 

think we have to go to a little history with our sanctuaries. Each 

and every sanctuary is different, and I’m thrilled, and I think that 

a sanctuary in your area, if it’s working well, is a wonderful thing. 

And in Mr. Hickman’s case here, he has also had that experience. 

We, unfortunately, have not. 

So one might be good, one might be bad, and one might be in between. We, unfortunately, are suffering, I believe, with some of the 

worst management problems. I’m not saying the sanctuaries are 

bad. I’m saying the management problems are bad. So here’s—I’m 

not going to read this letter, but this is from the—at this time—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. We can have that submitted for the record. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. This was submitted, I believe, to your—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

Monterey, CA, January 31, 2007 

United States Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Mr. MICHAEL FLORES, 

President, 

California Fish and Game Commission, 

Sacramento, CA. 

Re: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary comment on the Marine Life Protection Act Preferred Alternative 

Dear Mr. Flores, 

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary encompasses a large portion of the 

MLPA’s Central Coast Study Region extending 276 miles from the Marin Headlands 

in the north, to Cambria in the south. Sanctuary staff have appreciated the opportunity to be active participants in the current effort to designate marine protected 

areas (MPAs) on the central coast. The mandate of the MLPA to protect the marine 

ecosystem while maintaining the opportunity for sustainable use parallels our own 

under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. The current initiative has the potential 

to be a critical step in achieving those mandates and represents an opportunity to 

create a lasting milestone in effective marine conservation and management. 

We would like to again commend the Department and MLPA Initiative staff on 

engaging in a tremendously public and open process that incorporated the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders, and tapped the expertise of an impressive scientific advisory team. With stakeholders, scientists, Blue Ribbon Task Force members, the Commissioners and the public at large all contributing to the initiative, 

an unprecedented amount of community time and effort has gone into creating the 

package that the Commission adopted in August. 

Overall the package that the Commission adopted does a good job of striking a 

balance between package 1 and 2R, and represents an effective MPA network that 

allows for fishing to continue. However, we strongly recommend that the Commission 

view this package as the compromise that it is and not weaken it by choosing suboptions that would further undermine resource protection. 

We would like to also recommend that one change be made to strengthen the package in a critical way, which is prohibiting the take of pelagic prey species such as 

sardine and anchovy at Portuguese Ledge in Monterey Bay. 

These species are a critical part of the trophic structure providing a food source 

for countless marine species including seabirds, marine mammals, and fish. By protecting their role in the ecosystem at this location it could significantly benefit the 

more resident benthic species in the area such as rockfish. Prohibiting the take of 

pelagic prey species here would also provide an opportunity to understand the 

trophic linkages between benthic and pelagic species through comparison to a simiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
61 

lar proposed site in Monterey Bay, Soquel Canyon, where the take of pelagic prey 

species could be allowed. This is a connection that is not well understood and the 

network could provide an opportunity to understand this important ecological link. 

The socioeconomic impact of disallowing pelagic prey species at Portuguese Ledge 

would be limited. The boundaries in Package P have changed somewhat, but they 

are still similar to 3R where the Portuguese Ledge area represented less that 1 percent of each of the fishing grounds for squid, anchovy and sardine. Additionally, 

while these species are an important forage base for the resident species in the area, 

they also quickly pass through. Fishing effort could therefore shift outside the MPA 

boundary without an effect on catch. 

Again, we encourage the Commission to rely on the process that has led us to this 

point and not choose sub-options that would undermine the value of the MLPA on 

the central coast. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on what will be a historic initiative. 

If you have any questions please contact Holly Price. 

Sincerely, 

KAREN GRIMMER, 

Acting Superintendent. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. So this is written—I won’t mention the name, but 

an Acting Superintendent of the Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary, and it’s to the state, and it’s a letter thanking them for 

allowing their participation in the Marine Life Management Act, 

which is the Act that closed our state waters. And it briefly—I’ll 

just—‘‘Sanctuary staff have appreciated the opportunity to be active participants in the current effort to designate marine protected 

areas, MTAs, on the central coast,’’ and it goes on. There’s many 

more factors of the participant. 

Well, in the history of this, we thwarted twice the Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary. That was back in the late 1980s and 

early 1990s, and it was designated in 1992 with our cooperation, 

by the way. Leon Panetta—this is the third attempt, now. Leon Panetta was assigned to moderate—mediate, if you will—between the 

fishing industry and the sanctuaries. Well, at that time, he had 

language in their designation document and promises that they 

would never involve themselves with fisheries management. 

Well, since then, we have spent—our industry and myself and 

many others—countless hours in time that we could have devoted 

to our families and our businesses on struggling with their attempts at management policy. Now, that was only one instance, by 

the way, that state—there is also—they participated in and are 

currently working with Pacific Fisheries Management Council, or 

trying to work through them, I should say, in changing some of the 

essential fish habitat areas, which is another thing that we worked 

on. We disagree with their position, and they should not be involving themselves in any management. 

Senator PETERS. If I could just have a brief follow-up. So your 

concern, specifically, with Monterey Bay is in relation to fisheries 

regulations, the fact that there are no-fish zones. You mentioned 

the problems with the management. What about the management 

in terms of the other benefits of a sanctuary, whether it’s cultural 

heritage, whether it’s protecting marine mammals, whether it’s increasing tourism to Monterey Bay? 

Certainly, sanctuaries have a variety of benefits. Fishing is one 

of them, or fish management is one of them, but there is a long 

list of benefits. Would you say they have failed in all of those areas 

or simply in the fishing area? 

62 

Mr. O’BRIEN. No, I don’t believe they’ve failed in all those areas, 

and there are benefits to a sanctuary designation. I believe what 

they have done in our case—and I will get back to your question— 

but in our case, it’s a breach of trust. So we had made a deal. They 

caused a breach of trust. 

Now, as far as the economics go, I don’t believe there is a significant economic benefit. In your case, Congressman, there was, and 

that, again, is a wonderful thing. I have never heard of anybody— 

and I’ve been on the coast of California for 40 years now—anybody 

say they were going to Santa Barbara to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, or, for that matter, to Monterey Bay to 

visit Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. They go there to 

visit the aquarium, which has no relation whatsoever to the sanctuary. They go there to see the fishing boats and the beautiful bay. 

The sanctuaries are a wonderful thing if they follow what Congress, I believe, originally had designed them for. Involving themselves in management policies should not be their job. That’s why 

we have the Magnuson-Stevens, and we shouldn’t try to overlap 

two different—— 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. I appreciate it, Captain. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, thank you, Captain O’Brien, and I want 

to thank the witnesses again. Senator Peters and I are heading 

back to the Armed Services Committee. We have a markup of the 

annual defense bill right now. In a show of strong bipartisanship, 

I’m going to hand the gavel off to my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Markey, for questions and to close out the hearing. 

So I want to thank Senator Markey for that. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very 

much. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And I thank, again, the witnesses. Thank you 

very much. 

Senator MARKEY. And thanks to Ranking Member Peters, and I 

thank all the witnesses, and it looks like I’ll be the final questioner, 

so let me just get right to it. 

Earlier this month, I met with a remarkable constituent, Kevin 

Powers, who was named the 2017 Sanctuary Volunteer of the Year 

for his contributions to the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. His work with an ongoing sea bird survey is helping to understand the food web necessary to support migratory birds as well 

as whales, dolphins, fish, and other sea life. 

He has provided me with a letter on his work in Stellwagen as 

well as the broader contribution that Stellwagen makes to the 

coastal economy of Massachusetts and to understanding and protecting our incredible marine resources. And by unanimous consent, I will ask that this letter be included in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

63 

June 23, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast 

Guard, 

As the 2017 Volunteer of the Year honored by the National Marine Sanctuary 

Foundation during Capitol Hill Ocean Week last week, I wish to share my understanding of the benefits of national marine sanctuaries for myself, my community, 

public access, science and economy from sanctuaries using my involvement with the 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) in Cape Cod Bay, MA as an 

example. Since my retirement in 2013 I have volunteered at SBNMS as a member 

of the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), a contributor to a research program involving satellite-based telemetry of a seabird (Great Shearwater) and a participant 

in a citizen science program that systematically surveys seabirds in the sanctuary 

5–6 times a year. Prior to my retirement I was a seabird biologist from 1976–1983 

both in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. 

Through my own prior research in this area and that with SBNMS since 2013 

it is obvious to me that calanoid copeods and a forage fish called sand lance 

(Ammodytes dubius) form a core fabric of the food web for seabirds, whales, dolphins, seals and selected species of ground and mid-water fishes (which includes 

mackerel, cod and sea herring) in the southwest Gulf of Maine. A recent workshop 

(May 2017) was convened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Parker River 

National Wildlife Refuge in Newburyport MA to gather academics, research groups, 

and government agencies to discuss available information on sand lance, detail existing research underway and by whom, and compile a publishable document on the 

importance and vulnerability of this forage fish in this marine community. To this 

end the New England Fisheries Council was strongly encouraged to pursue an ecosystem-based policy for their management of harvested groundfish and mid-water 

fisheries. The basis of this encouragement is that is necessary to factor in take/harvest for all marine predators (i.e., seabirds, whales, seals) when setting limits for 

commercial harvesting of specific fisheries, not just limits (i.e., takes) for commercial 

fishermen. None of this recognition and action would have been possible if were not 

for the SBNMS and their internal research program on sand lance and its connection to marine predators such as seabirds and marine mammals. 

The SAC at each national marine sanctuary provides representation for a most 

diverse group of stakeholders. It represents commercial interests (e.g., fishing, whale 

watching, diving, etc.), law enforcement, government agencies (state and federal) 

and research organizations. From my perspective as a seabird biologist and volunteer of the year, SBNMS represents an important marine area that requires the recognition and protection as afforded by its national marine sanctuary status. All interests have a collective reason to meet and discuss its health and future. 

SBNMS offers educational outreach to surrounding public schools and partners 

with other educational groups to reach and educate the public, in particular youth, 

about what is available to them in the sanctuary. 

SBNMS is diverse both economically and environmentally. The commercial shipping lanes that take cargo to and from Boston move through the sanctuary. In the 

past decade SBNMS was able to enable a change in the earlier configuration of the 

shipping lanes, which had been routed through the most heavily used southern part 

of Stellwagen Bank by endangered Right and Humpback Whales, to an area that 

mostly avoided these critical feeding areas without undo hardship to commercial 

shipping. This change provided an immense environmental benefit in that it reduced the number of whales struck by cargo vessels. 

During my trips on the citizen science seabird surveys, I have met a diverse background of volunteers. These volunteers included professional engineers, scientists, 

educators, students and bird watchers who wanted an opportunity to have an experience on the ocean, learn new skills, or create new networking contacts to get a 

job or start a career. In all cases, they took personal time off from their existing 

work in order to participate. 

There is a growing community of people from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean 

that come to Massachusetts to see marine mammals (whales, dolphins and seals) 

and seabirds. Commercial ventures for whale-watching and sea birders exist in 

coastal towns from Boston to Provincetown. These boat operators primarily go to 

64 

SBNMS. Recreational and charter fishing tours also go to SBNMS. These commercial enterprises advertise SBNMS in their marketing. The towns in which these enterprises operate benefit from dining and parking revenue. 

America’s national marine sanctuaries, including my very own Stellwagen Bank 

in Massachusetts, are national treasures that protect natural, cultural and historic 

resources in the ocean and Great Lakes on behalf of the American people for current 

and future generations. I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide this 

letter of support for our Nation’s national marine sanctuaries. 

Sincerely, 

KEVIN POWERS, 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Volunteer, 

Plymouth, MA. 

Senator MARKEY. Dr. Lautenbacher, how do marine sanctuaries 

with their citizen science support help scientists from NOAA and 

other research institutions to better understand the ocean and our 

marine resources? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. The sanctuary office itself has a number of experts that are involved and understand ecosystems, understand fisheries management, understand the various factors that 

are involved. So there’s a good deal of science that goes into understanding it. There also is a good deal of conversation and connection with the local experts who are out there in the water with 

fishermen and people who are with the local universities. So there’s 

a web and a connection of people trying to provide the best information available at the time, and it can come from a variety of 

sources, as I’ve just mentioned. 

Senator MARKEY. So Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary in Massachusetts was just named the number one best place 

to see aquatic life by USA Today. Nearly a decade ago, a study 

found that tourists spent more than $125 million to travel to and 

visit the Stellwagen Sanctuary in 2008. How, in your experience, 

Admiral, do marine sanctuaries contribute to the coastal economies 

of communities that are nearby? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. They’re enormously effective. The total 

that we have is about $8 billion a year in terms of development 

and providing additional income and secondary effects in the coastal areas where they are. So overall—I can’t claim that every one 

is equal, but overall, that’s what they get. And, normally, things 

like recreational fishing and commercial fishing does even better. 

You’re into the $100 million, $150 million range for a year or so 

that you’re getting in these various areas. So it’s a reasonable— 

we’re talking serious money. It’s not something to throw away, and 

that’s why these gentlemen are here. 

Senator MARKEY. So in your opinion, is it in America’s interest 

to have a system of marine sanctuaries and protected areas, Admiral? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, it is. It is in our interest. It is in 

the world’s interest. It is in our interest as well, definitely. 

Senator MARKEY. Based on their studies of where whales are 

congregating, Stellwagen Sanctuary staff and NOAA have partnered with the International Maritime Organization to redirect the 

Boston shipping lanes and protect endangered whales off the coast 

of Massachusetts. The shift cuts the risk of vessel collisions with 

critically endangered right whales by an estimated 58 percent and 

all other baleen whales by 31 percent. 

65 

Dr. Lautenbacher, do marine sanctuaries generate information 

about the ocean and marine life that is important for commercial 

activities as well? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes, they do, and they accept it from 

the local sources as well as their own experts, or at least they’re 

supposed to. I’m speaking for the time that I was there, since I left 

in 2008. I’m sure that there are still some very well-meaning people running the organization. But that’s the idea. The idea is to get 

the information from the fishermen, from the people who are on 

the water, and the people who use it for various purposes, whether 

it be recreation or for whale watching or recreational fishing. All 

of that counts. 

Senator MARKEY. In your testimony, you mentioned that, ‘‘The 

ocean today is not healthy.’’ From your perspective as a former 

NOAA Administrator, how do marine sanctuaries help the ocean 

regain its health? 

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. They help by having a structured regime that’s monitored by a management staff as well as the advisory board and the people that are there and the good folks that 

you listened to that are sitting next to me that are using today— 

using those sanctuaries. Having that managed process—and if you 

go back and look at most of the—well, every paper that I’ve seen 

that’s responsible—if you’re able to control to a certain extent fisheries at the right level, you can re-stimulate even areas which have 

been fished out, supposedly. You can’t go too far because you destroy the food chain—the food web, which is very hard to restore 

once you do that, like what’s happened in Canada. But in the 

United States, we’ve not reached that point yet. 

But still, if you preserve areas and reduce or at least monitor— 

and the National Marine Fishery Service does that in its setup— 

you will regain the structure of the fishery. So you can actually recover, based on the kinds of rules that are set up, if they’re set up 

carefully and they’re monitored. 

Senator MARKEY. The hearing record will remain open for two 

weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to 

submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible. 

We thank each of the witnesses for their participation here 

today. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you all for 

your cooperation and your help. 

[Whereupon, at 10:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(67) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KRISTEN J. SARRI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY FOUNDATION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and members of the Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, thank you for the opportunity to 

submit written testimony regarding the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the 

National Marine Sanctuary System. I provide this testimony on behalf of our national network of chapter and friends groups include the California Marine Sanctuary Foundation (CA), Cordell Marine Sanctuary Foundation (CA), Greater 

Farallones Association (CA), Friends of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

(MI), Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (GA), and Sanctuary 

Friends Foundation of the Florida Keys (FL). 

The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation is a national non-profit organization 

whose mission is to conserve treasured places in our ocean and Great Lakes for current and future generations of Americans to enjoy. Founded in 2000, the Foundation 

promotes citizen science, research, conservation, education, and community engagement to conserve coral reefs, marine and Great Lakes habitats, protect places of cultural significance, and preserve our maritime history and heritage. Partnerships are 

critical to the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation’s work. Through collaboration 

with local communities, businesses, government, corporations, and individual donors 

we increase our impact. To illustrate the importance and support for America’s national marine sanctuaries from their communities, attached are 27 letters of support 

from local leaders from across the National Marine Sanctuary System, both sites 

under designation, and numerous sanctuary nominations. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation works to connect Americans to sanctuaries and to support critical research efforts to expand our understanding of ocean 

and Great Lakes ecosystems. We do this by supporting: 

• Exploration expeditions to uncover shipwrecks in the Pacific and along the eastern seaboard; 

• Science to characterize biological resources and assess the health of marine and 

Great Lakes resources and ecosystems such as corals in the Gulf of Mexico; 

• Research such as tagging and tracking of commercially and recreationally important fish species, studying areas of importance during critical life stages 

such as spawning aggregations, nurseries, and habitats, investing in long-term 

monitoring, developing tools for fishermen, and recognizing businesses that promote sustainable fishing practices; 

• Outreach to connect families and youth to our ocean and Great Lakes through 

the sport of recreational saltwater fishing, and fostering a sense of stewardship 

and responsibility for America’s great outdoors; 

• Conservation of vulnerable marine species and habitats through communitybased efforts such as rehabilitation, release, and tagging of seals and sea lions 

on the West Coast; whale disentanglement and rescue in Hawai’i; and installation of mooring buoys to protect corals in the Florida Keys; and, 

• Mitigation of invasive species that threaten habitats, public safety, and economic opportunities such as the invasive lionfish in the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary. 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the National Marine Sanctuary 

System 

In 1972, Congress had the foresight to pass the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

to promote the conservation of areas of national significance in our ocean and Great 

Lakes for future generations of Americans, specifically, calling for the protection of 

areas in our ocean and Great Lakes that ‘‘possess conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, archeological, or esthetic qualities 

which give them special national, and in some cases international, significance.’’ 

68 

Congress recognized the need to manage these areas as a system to conserve, understand, manage and sustainably use resources; to enhance public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the marine and Great Lake environments; and, to 

maintain for future generations the habitat and ecological services of living resources that inhabit these areas. 

Today, the National Marine Sanctuary Systems consists of 13 national marine 

sanctuaries, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) comanages two marine national monuments. In total, these sites cover over 620,000 

square miles and conserve some of the Nation’s most critical natural and cultural 

resources in the ocean and Great Lakes. It is important to underline the fact that 

NOAA holds these resources in trust for all the American people. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Act requires sanctuary managers to ‘‘facilitate to 

the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public 

and private uses of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to 

other authorities.’’ Therefore, managers balance multiple uses on the water and engage many constituencies in managing and conserving marine and Great Lakes resources. Every sanctuary permits multiple uses, however, management varies as 

each sanctuary is different based on the resources it was established to conserve 

and the community where it is located. 

Healthy sanctuaries support local communities and businesses by generating ap- proximately $8 billion annually to support coastal and ocean dependent economies. 

Recreation in sanctuaries brings in $2.15 billion in income alone, supporting 63,000 

jobs. 

Sanctuaries and Resources Conservation—Our national marine sanctuaries work 

to protect the most important marine ecosystems and natural and cultural resources 

in America’s ocean and Great Lakes waters. Sanctuary habitats include vibrant 

coral reefs, kelp forests, sand banks, migration corridors, deep-sea canyons, and underwater archaeological sites. Contained within the boundaries of sanctuaries are 

more than 300 discovered shipwrecks that document our past as a seafaring nation. 

These sites are home to millions of species, including endangered and threatened 

species such as the Hawaiian monk seal, Pacific Leatherback sea turtle, and the 

Southern Resident killer whale, where sanctuaries play a critical role in their recovery. The National Marine Sanctuary System harbors roughly 15 to 20 percent of the 

Nation’s coral reefs, including some of the most pristine reefs in the U.S. and the 

oldest and largest corals in the world. 

Sanctuaries often help identify solutions to resource conservation and restoration 

to protect species. In Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts, the sanctuary, universities, 

the ports, and shipping industry worked together to shift the location of shipping 

traffic lanes to reduce the risk of ship strikes to the endangered North Atlantic right 

whales by 58 percent and to baleen whales by over 80 percent. On the west coast, 

sanctuaries are working with researchers to investigate food shortage for sea lions 

and seals. By using telemetry, scientists can study rehabilitated pinnipeds to understand where pups forage and provide real time response to prey and environmental 

conditions. 

Some of the most important known sites for seasonal aggregations of adult and 

sub-adult northeastern Pacific white sharks are located in the Greater Farallones 

Sanctuary. These sites provide critical feeding areas during their annual migration, 

and tagging and photo identification provide information about their life history and 

ecology, environmental factors affecting abundance and success, and local population 

estimates and trends. 

In the Florida Keys, coral nurseries aim to replenish wild populations of corals 

by providing care and protection to nurse them back to health and eventually transplanting them on the reef to improve and supplement existing corals. Coral restoration efforts, like these nurseries, hope to enhance reef resilience, and citizen science 

initiatives actively promote stewardship and outreach to reduce stressors. 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary serves as one of the most productive 

fish-growing habitats as well as a critical habitat and migratory pathway for twenty-nine species of marine mammals and multiple seabird species. Four Olympic 

Coast tribes’—the Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault—use of Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary waters dates back centuries from present day. Sanctuary 

staff and the four tribes work together on behalf of sanctuary management to 

strengthen resources and respect the longstanding relationship of coastal Native 

Americans and the marine environment. 

The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary protects 

more than 21,000 humpbacks. The Sanctuary is active in research and conservation, 

specifically through the Whale Disentanglement Response Initiative. The sanctuary 

conducts collaborative research projects that assess populations of humpbacks and 

the condition of their habitat, and differentiate between natural and anthropogenic 

69 

impacts. Recently, much of the sanctuary’s research focus has been on SPLASH 

(Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance, and Status of Humpbacks), an 

international cooperative research study of the population structure of humpback 

whales across the North Pacific and the world’s largest and most comprehensive research project ever conducted on any whale species. 

Sanctuaries and Public Access—Sanctuaries also support tourism and offer worldclass outdoor recreation experiences for all ages. An estimated 42 million people 

visit sanctuaries each year. The majority of national marine sanctuaries’ waters are 

open to compatible recreational activities which also allows for considerable benefits 

to local economies. To promote sustainable tourism in America’s sanctuaries, every 

year, sanctuaries host ‘‘Get into Your Sanctuary’’ celebrations. These events raise 

awareness about the value of our sanctuaries as iconic destinations for responsible 

recreation through a series of special activities. 

Over half (58 percent) of visitors to Alpena, Michigan come to visit Thunder Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary, which is the region’s most popular attraction, boasting 

nearly 100,000 visitors per year. Sanctuary visitors can enjoy diving, glass-bottom 

boat tours, kayaking, snorkeling, fishing, and exploring the Great Lakes Maritime 

Heritage Center. The Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center is a visitor center for 

the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, featuring exciting exhibits for all 

ages. The ‘‘Exploring the Shipwreck Century’’ exhibit is located in the center’s main 

hall and includes a full-size replica wooden Great Lakes schooner and shipwreck 

where visitors can walk the decks, feel a Great Lakes storm, and touch the massive 

timbers of the boat resting on the lake bottom without getting in the water. 

The whale watching industry in the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary contributes up to $11 million in total revenue annually, to the 

adjacent communities, with a total economic impact of nearly $74 million per year. 

Whale watching by boat and from the shores is a major activity in the sanctuary, 

but the destination also encourages exploring the resident seals, sea turtles, dolphins, fish, invertebrates and birds. Three times a year, more than 2,000 volunteers, 

including many ecotourists, join in the Ocean Count program by monitoring, counting, and documenting behavior of humpbacks throughout Hawai’i. These efforts improve habitats, raise ocean awareness, and contribute significantly to the state’s 

economy. 

Sport fishing, shellfish-gathering, hiking, camping, surfing, diving, kayaking, tidepooling, beachcombing, and wildlife exploration attract 3 million people to Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary each year. Recent estimates indicate that $101.6 

million was spent on recreation in the sanctuary. This spending generated, with 

multiplier impacts, $128.2 million in output, $78 million in value-added (gross regional product), and $46.1 million in income, which supported 1,192 jobs. 

Known as the ‘‘Serengeti of the Sea’’, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

is home to 34 species of marine mammals, great white sharks, four turtle species, 

180 species of birds, 525 species of fishes, 1300 reported shipwrecks, and more than 

700 prehistoric sites, making tourism and recreation opportunities such as whale 

watching, diving, boating, kayaking, fishing, tide-pooling and beach exploration endless. The Sanctuary’s flagship visitor facility, the Santa Cruz Exploration Center, is 

also a valuable educational hub for residents and tourists, playing a critical role in 

community efforts to revitalize Santa Cruz. 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary’s sustainable tourism practices, including diving, snorkeling, whale watching, kayaking, boating, sailing, and fishing, promote long-term conservation of its habitats and resources while enabling responsible, compatible human activities. From June to November, sanctuary visitors can 

see humpback and blue whales feeding relatively close to shore and, late summer 

into fall, head offshore for more seabird and marine mammal viewing opportunities. 

Seabirds, whales, and sea turtles travel across the Pacific basin to feed here. Albatross fly from Japan and Hawaii to feed before returning to their nests to feed their 

young. 

North America’s only living coral barrier reef (the world’s third largest) and one 

of the most popular diving destinations, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

supports the region’s success in global tourism. Ocean-related activities connected 

to the Sanctuary bring the local economy more than $4.4 billion in annual revenue 

and over 70,000 jobs. World-class diving, swimming, fishing, boating, and other 

sports draw visitors to the sanctuary. More than 72,000 people annually visit the 

sanctuary’s Eco-Discovery Center, a 6,000-square-foot interactive learning experience for all ages. 

Sanctuaries and Fishing—For centuries, communities used marine protected 

areas to conserve both ecosystems and fisheries production. Marine protected areas 

provide a safe haven where fish can grow, reproduce, and spill over to surrounding 

areas; help rebuild fish stocks; maintain ecosystem health and diversity; and supVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
70 

port livelihoods and communities. National marine sanctuaries are a type of marine 

protected area that focus both on conserving resources while balancing sustainable 

activities, such as commercial and recreational fishing, for future generations. Sanctuaries encompass some of the most productive fishing grounds in America’s waters. 

Approximately 98 percent of sanctuary waters allow some forms of fishing. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) both provide critical statutory authorities for marine resource management. The statutes provide tools that can be 

used exclusively, or in combination with each other, for resource conservation. The 

MSA’s primary purpose is to conserve and manage fish stocks in the Exclusive Economic Zone to end and prevent overfishing in federally-managed fisheries and actively rebuild stocks. The NMSA primary purpose is to provide long-term conservation of nationally significant areas designated as national marine sanctuaries. 

The NMSA provides authority for NOAA to issue regulations in order to meet the 

resource conservation goals of a sanctuary. This includes regulations for certain 

fishing activities if determined necessary to conserve sanctuary resources or qualities. Sanctuaries are place-based, and the NMSA focuses on ecosystem protection including protection of biological communities and habitats. Resource-specific legislation such as MSA cannot in all cases provide a comprehensive and coordinated approach for the conservation and management of these special areas. For over 40 

years, the two statutes working together have provided a framework for resource 

conservation and management. 

Each sanctuary working with a variety of local stakeholders, including the Sanctuary Advisory Council and Fishery Management Council, evaluates on a case-bycase basis which tool is most appropriate. NMSA requires NOAA to provide the relevant fishery management councils the opportunity to prepare draft sanctuary fishing regulations. One example is krill management in California. Three national marine sanctuaries in California went through a joint management plan review process. The process identified krill harvesting as a significant issue because of its importance as a forage species throughout the Pacific coastal region. Through discussion with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), the sanctuaries reached 

a mutually-agreeable solution that PFMC would recommend a prohibition on the 

take of krill under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Sanctuaries partner with commercial and recreational fishermen, businesses, 

charters, and education partners to promote sustainable fishing practices; maintain 

fishing cultures in sanctuaries; develop tools for fisheries management; connect families and youth to our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes through the sport of recreational saltwater fishing; and foster a sense of stewardship and responsibility for 

America’s great outdoors. One example is the Blue Star Angler program in development to engage recreational fishing charters in the Florida Keys. The Foundation, 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary staff, and the Sanctuary Advisory Council 

are working with charter fishing captains and guides to develop a voluntary education and recognition program to encourage businesses to educate their customers 

to conserve the Florida Keys ecosystem. The program, set to officially launch in 

2018, is being adapted from the Blue Star program for diving and boating businesses but is being tailored to meet the needs and business practices unique to the 

recreational fishing sector. 

Research in sanctuaries can provide valuable information on impacts of activities, 

recovery and resilience of stocks to changing ocean conditions, and opportunities for 

collaborative research with fishermen, the fishing industry, and other partners. The 

National Marine Sanctuary System supports tagging and tracking research on commercially and recreationally important fish species, studying areas of importance 

during critical life stages such as spawning aggregations, nurseries, and habitats, 

investing in long-term monitoring, and incorporating traditional knowledge and traditions in management and conservation. 

Sanctuaries and Maritime Heritage—National marine sanctuaries tell the story of 

our Nation’s maritime heritage, from sea to shining sea. Our blue highways connect 

countries and coastal communities, and allow us to transport goods that drive our 

economies. Sanctuaries safeguard the final resting grounds of historic wrecks, prehistoric archaeological sites, and other cultural artifacts. They honor and celebrate 

the history, contributions and sacrifices of our ancestors. And, they enable Americans to connect and learn from our shared maritime past as we look for future opportunities. 

Congress created the first marine sanctuary to protect the wreckage of the famed 

Civil War ironclad USS Monitor. When the remains of two unknown sailors were 

exhumed from the recovered USS Monitor turret, Monitor sanctuary staff, the Navy, 

the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, and other partners utilized 3D facial 

reconstruction technology to identify the sailors, track down the descendants of 

71 

these and other Monitor soldiers, and arrange a proper military burial at Arlington 

National Cemetery to pay respect to the sailors, commemorate their service to their 

country, and acknowledge their role in American history. 

Ninety-five years ago, the 56 brave crew members of the USS Conestoga gave 

their lives in service for their country when this U.S. Navy tug sank. Presumed lost 

off the coast of Baja California or close to Hawaii, in 2014, the NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Maritime Heritage Program found the shipwreck in what 

is now Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. The discovery provided closure for families of the Conestoga’s crew who kept the story alive for future generations. 

Historical research indicates that more than 200 shipwrecks lie in and around 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. To date, more than 50 shipwrecks have 

been discovered within the sanctuary and an additional 30 wrecks have been located 

outside of the sanctuary boundaries. Although the sheer number of shipwrecks is 

impressive, it is the range of vessel types located in the sanctuary that makes the 

collection nationally significant. 

Sanctuaries and Research—National marine and Great Lakes sanctuaries’ impact 

extends far beyond their boundaries. Sanctuaries are vital to understanding how climate change and ocean acidification are impacting our waters. Through long-term 

monitoring and research at these sites, we can enhance our understanding of natural and historical resources and how they are changing. They also provide an early 

warning capability to detect changes to ecosystem processes and conditions. For example, in July 2016, divers were stunned to find green, hazy water, huge patches 

of ugly white mats coating corals and sponges, and dead animals littering the bottom in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico, 

a reef system once considered one of the healthiest reefs in the region. These reefs 

are home to many species of recreationally and commercially important fish and 

serve as stopover/resting spots for migratory species travelling across the Gulf of 

Mexico and wider Caribbean. Because of monitoring within the sanctuary, NOAA 

scientists and university partners could assess the sources of the mass die off, determine impacts to the larger environment, and find solutions for improving the reef’s 

condition. 

Exploration and mapping expeditions in sanctuaries also hold enormous potential 

for the discovery of new species, including some found nowhere else on earth. Sanctuaries are ideal places for scientists, students, and the public to study and explore 

marine habitats in never-before-possible ways through innovations like Remotely 

Operated Vehicles (ROVs), underwater imaging, mapping, and data collection. These 

technologies are leading to better understanding of the ocean, making virtual visits 

a reality, and exploring more effective tactics to ensure its sustainability. For example, in 2016, the cartoon-like ‘‘googly eyed, stubby squid’’ that captured the public’s 

hearts and went viral on social media was observed at a depth of 900 meters (2,950 

feet) by the Nautilus Live team as part of a four-month Ocean Exploration Trust 

mapping expedition in partnership with Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Sanctuaries and Volunteerism—National marine sanctuaries are the blue backyards for thousands of citizens and dedicated volunteers. Volunteers are the heart 

and soul of the national marine sanctuaries; they represent the best of America. 

Thousands of volunteers devote their time, effort, and dedication to conserve sanctuaries for future generations. Sanctuary Volunteer Programs are nationally recognized and awarded for their work increasing awareness, engaging the community, 

promoting stewardship, and providing critical information and support for science, 

research, education, and management. In 2011, the Channel Islands Naturalist 

Corps received the ‘‘Take Pride in America Outstanding Federal Volunteer Program 

Award’’. And, in 2012, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary’s Ocean Count Program received the ‘‘Take Pride in America Award.’’ In 2016, 

volunteers contributed more than 137,000 hours of their service at sanctuaries (the 

equivalent of $3.23 million of in-kind support). In 2016, almost 9,000 volunteers 

supported national marine sanctuary citizen science efforts helping to answer realworld scientific questions. 

Sanctuary Nominations and Designations 

Ken Burns called the national parks ‘‘America’s Best Idea’’ because they are the 

story of people, Americans from all walks of life devoted to protecting lands they 

love. The same is true for our national marine sanctuaries, which are a uniquely 

American idea. They are the story of people and communities dedicated to conserving special places in our ocean and Great Lakes for both current and future generations. Sanctuaries capture the spirit of communities through participatory conservation. Thousands of volunteers enthusiastically donate their time to aid in conVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
72 

servation and education, scientists study these living laboratories to unlock mysteries, and local citizens serve on advisory councils that inform the management of 

our public waters for all Americans. 

To create a national marine sanctuary, passionate citizens can explore two different approaches to designate a new sanctuary—through Congress or the Executive 

Branch. Communities can advocate to their Members of Congress to pass legislation 

to create a national marine sanctuary that is later signed into law by the President. 

Laws established Florida Keys, Stellwagen Bank, and Hawaiian Islands Humpback 

Whale national marine sanctuaries. Communities and NOAA can also nominate an 

area to become a new sanctuary. 

Communities nominate their most treasured places in our marine and Great 

Lakes waters for consideration as national marine sanctuaries. Communities submit 

a proposal to the Administration through NOAA’s sanctuary nomination process. 

NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries then reviews these community-based 

nominations to ensure they have diverse support, meet criteria of national significance, and consider management considerations and other factors. After NOAA accepts the candidate site then it may be considered for potential designation. 

Sanctuary designation is a separate public process that, by law, is highly public 

and participatory, and often takes several years to complete. It emphasizes community participation and engagement to ensure the national marine sanctuary considers the needs of interested communities. The designation process includes public 

meetings and comment periods, and consultation to inform NOAA’s development of 

the management plans and sanctuary regulations. Nominations can remain in the 

inventory for up to five years before they are reviewed and updated. 

Currently, there are eight nominations in the inventory: Mallows Bay—Potomac 

River (MD); Lake Michigan (WI); Hudson Canyon (NY); St. George Unangan Heritage (AK); Lake Erie Quadrangle (PA); Chumash Heritage—second submission (CA); 

Lake Ontario (NY); and Mariana Trench (CNMI). One nomination is currently 

under review by NOAA for listing on the inventory: Southern California Offshore 

Banks (CA). When a nomination does not meet criteria during the NOAA review, 

the agency can decline the nomination. To date, five nominations have been declined 

or withdrawn. 

Two sites in the inventory—Mallows Bay-Potomac River (MD) and WisconsinLake Michigan (WI)—are under consideration for designation. For the first time in 

over 16 years, the Nation could add new sanctuaries to the System. The National 

Marine Sanctuary Foundation strongly urges NOAA to designate these two sites as 

sanctuaries. 

• Mallows Bay-Potomac River: Just 40 miles south of the Nation’s capital, 

Mallows Bay-Potomac River is most renowned for the remains of more than 100 

wooden steamships, known as the ‘‘Ghost Fleet,’’ which were built for the U.S. 

Emergency Fleet between 1917–1919 as part of America’s engagement in World 

War I and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A Mallows 

Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary would preserve these important 

pieces of American history; enhance public access, education and research; and 

create business and job opportunities from tourism and outdoor recreation. 

• Wisconsin-Lake Michigan: For centuries, the icy cold waters of Lake Michigan 

served as a treacherous gateway for communities, commerce, and trade that 

drove the prosperity and expansion of our Nation. Wisconsin’s maritime heritage runs deep with more individually listed shipwrecks on the National Register of Historic Places than any other state. These shipwrecks and cultural artifacts are important pieces of American history and represent the tenacity and 

entrepreneurial spirit of generations of Americans. The Wisconsin-Lake Michigan Sanctuary would support research and exploration to connect maritime museums, state and local parks, and school districts to these wonders and to the 

Great Lakes history while advancing STEM education to promote job skills and 

opportunities for the next generation. 

Once designated, marine sanctuaries are managed through an extensive public 

engagement process with local citizen participation. At each sanctuary, NOAA establishes local offices with staff who live in the community. Each sanctuary develops 

management plans, providing for the specific needs and circumstances of the site 

and community. The Act also calls for the establishment of community-based National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils, comprised of diverse stakeholders who 

provide advice and recommendations to the sanctuary’s superintendent on issues including management, science, service, and stewardship. More than 440 sanctuary 

advisory council members represent stakeholders across these communities to provide advice and recommendations directly to sanctuary managers. 

73 

Conclusion 

Our national marine sanctuaries are national treasures. The National Marine 

Sanctuary Foundation joined by our national network of chapter and friends groups 

urge Congress to strongly support the National Marine Sanctuary System and the 

community-driven process to both expand existing sanctuaries and to conserve more 

nationally significant areas of America’s ocean and Great Lakes for future generations of Americans. Investments in these areas support local economies and jobs in 

a diversity of sectors from education to outdoor recreation to fishing. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide written testimony to the Subcommittee 

on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. 

Stephen D. Kroll 

Rogers City, MI 

Senator GARY PETERS

Washington, DC 

Dear Senator Peters; 

This letter is in regard to Executive Order 13795, Section 4(b)—America First Offshore Energy, and the hearing on June 27, 2017. 

The first point I wish to make is that the Sanctuaries, wether created or expanded, only happen at the re quest of the people who live and work in the area. 

The Sanctuaries program is not a top down but a bottom up program which is designed by the collective concerns that the people of the affected area feel are worth 

preserving for the common good. To even consider repealing what the citizens of 

these areas have long worked for goes against what already makes ‘‘America Great 

NOW’’. I fail to understand how ‘‘conservatives’’ think that exploitation of resources 

is going to ‘‘Make America Great Again’’ if we have nothing left. These ‘‘special 

places’’ are a very small percent of the area we have and to not protect them, and 

hopefully more of them, for future generations seems very selfish for any short term 

gain. 

Please note that there are two types of Sanctuaries, some protect cultural heritage 

and some that protect natural environment. The Sanctuaries that protect natural 

environment are trying to sustain that environment for long term use. So the protection is there for us to hopefully gain the knowledge as to how to maintain productive use of not just these areas but to develop and apply a ‘‘sustainable use’’ concept 

to the oceans. Cultural heritage sanctuaries are protecting the Maritime Heritage 

of our Nation. These are areas which happen to have shipwrecks of significant historical value that without protection would be exploited. 

There are many values that the Sanctuaries Program has but to me it is that it 

is truly America at its best, government for the people and ‘‘BY’’ the people. In doing 

so it brings people in an area to take ownership and work together for a common 

good. There are many other co-operative gains which come out of this which create 

a much better place, with an improved quality of life. 

As a citizen who is actively involved with the Sanctuaries program, and in particular one who lives on the shore of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 

I hope that our expansion is not repealed. There were NEVER any funds added for 

the expansion to occur but because of it we have been able to apply and obtain 

grants which have funded many of our programs which affect what is our expanded 

three county area. There has been a steady increase in our area of new businesses 

coming into the area and those which are here being more stable since the sanctuary being established. Even where I live, 40 miles north of Alpena in the expanded area, empty store front buildings are being occupied with new businesses 

and we are seeing growth again. Reducing our size will effect greatly our ability 

serve the new 3 county area with educational programs and coordinate co-operative 

use of resources. 

I thank you for representing my concerns, 

STEPHEN D. KROLL

74 

Margaret (P.J.) Webb 

Public Interest Attorney at Law 

Cambria, CA 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chair, 

Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and 

Coast Guard, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Sullivan and Committee Members, 

Sanctuaries are designated in recognition of nationally significant oceanographic, 

geological, biological and archaeological characteristics. These are very special 

places. Given the threats to our coasts and oceans from offshore oil and gas development, urban and rural pollution, global climate change and so much more, we must 

strengthen and keep intact our national marine sanctuaries. They are a vital part 

of building resilience for our planet. 

National marine sanctuaries protect natural resources while encouraging responsible public access to our vital ocean. Protecting this habitat preserves the beauty 

of nature and our local economies. Sanctuaries attract funding for science, research 

opportunities and educational institutions. Sanctuary outreach and education focuses on stewardship of the land, the watersheds, the intertidal, the coast, the ocean 

and our planet. Sanctuaries increase the collaboration of government agencies and 

non-governmental organizations leveraging diminishing funding into more efficient 

outcomes. The extensive volunteer support expands the natural resource protection 

and forges strong bonds between sanctuaries and their communities. In my region, 

there is considerable public and business support for the Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary because it has proven to be a good partner for protecting the 

beauty of our coast while bringing so many visitors here to witness the grandeur 

of nature. 

Beyond the socioeconomic and ecological benefits, the advantages of the national 

marine sanctuary system are numerous. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires that communities drive the process of designating a sanctuary. I have participated in this public input for over 10 years. I find that intensive public participation 

is a vital part of ongoing sanctuary management. There is transparency in decision 

making; adaptive and accountable management along with research, education and 

enforcement responsibilities. National marine sanctuaries encourage public access 

and usage by both commercial and recreational interests while protecting the resources that all benefit from. 

Sincerely, 

MARGARET (P.J.) WEBB, 

Attorney at Law. 

INLAND OCEAN COALITION

June 23, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast 

Guard, 

On behalf of the Inland Ocean Coalition and the seven Inland Ocean chapters 

throughout North America, we would like to emphasize that we greatly value the 

National Marine Sanctuary Program. Sanctuaries are for all Americans and inland 

communities care deeply about these national treasures. 

We live in land locked states, and going to the coast is a big deal for us. When 

we travel to the ocean, we are often looking for regions that have special characteristics—areas that have been conserved for recreation, historical, and aesthetic qualities. Sanctuaries are attractive in that they draw many people in for their beauty, 

biodiversity, and accessibility. These are major economic engines that attract visitors from SCUBA divers to fishermen to families looking for peace and relaxation. 

75 

Sanctuaries do not just pop up, they are about community engagement. The open 

public process and extensive community participation is central to how sanctuaries 

operate and this process allows and invites people who do not live near a sanctuary 

to participate. People care deeply about these protected and managed areas and 

want to see them properly cared for. This open process encourages us to have a 

voice and share how important sanctuaries are for current and future generations. 

Best, 

VICKI NICHOLS GOLDSTEIN, 

Founder and Director, 

Inland Ocean Coalition. 

O’NEILL SEA ODYSSEY

Santa Cruz, CA, June 23, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chair, 

Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, 

and Coast Guard, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Sullivan and Committee Members: 

On behalf of O’Neill Sea Odyssey, a non-profit organization that provides a free, 

ocean-going hands-on science program on Monterey Bay, I am writing in support of 

the national marine sanctuaries that protect 15,500 square miles, or 5 percent, of 

America’s west coast as well as other U.S. waters and the Great Lakes, including 

areas that have been added to this designation in the past ten years. 

The west coast national marine sanctuaries, from south to north, include Channel 

Islands surrounding its namesake island chain off Santa Barbara, Monterey Bay 

which extends from northern San Luis Obispo County north to San Francisco Bay, 

Cordell Bank, then Greater Farallones Sanctuary that extends up past the southern 

part of Mendocino County, and finally, Olympic Coast off Washington State. Channel Islands is the oldest west coast site, having been established in 1980. Greater 

Farallones—formerly known as Gulf of the Farallones in tribute to the islands it 

surrounded—and Cordell Bank Sanctuaries were expanded in size in 2015. 

An outcome of the 1969 oil spill during an offshore drilling operation off Santa 

Barbara, California was the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, approved by Congress and signed by President Richard Nixon in 1972. It authorized 

the establishment of marine sanctuaries and today, 13 of them located in the ocean 

and Great Lakes are managed for their ecological or cultural values and to promote 

resource protection, research and education. 

Besides rules such as a ban on oil and gas drilling, they also, among other things, 

protect marine heritage sites such as shipwrecks. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service oversees the sanctuaries, along with 

two national marine monuments, with varying levels of protection. 

National marine sanctuaries protect habitats and the plants and animals they 

host alongside uses such as fishing and recreation. While that sounds contradictory, 

it actually does work, as is the case on California’s central coast where Monterey 

Bay National Marine Sanctuary prevents offshore oil development, but whose waters are also a host a power generating plant at Moss Landing, a big wave contest 

at the world famous Maverick’s reef near Half Moon Bay and a fishing industry 

while also promoting marine research and education. 

I strongly encourage continued sanctuary management of these areas. Thank you 

for considering our views. 

Sincerely, 

DAN HAIFLEY, 

Executive Director. 

76 

1The U.S. Congress renewed the designation on December 19,2014 at 54 U.S.C. 308705. 

SHEBOYGAN COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

June 23, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

I am writing on behalf of the Sheboygan County Chamber of Commerce of Wisconsin. We are pleased to support the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s designation of the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary. 

As proposed, the sanctuary would protect and interpret maritime heritage resources, 

including 37 historic shipwrecks in a 1,075-square-mile area off the coast of 

Ozaukee, Sheboygan and Manitowoc counties. The designation proposal mirrors the 

successful sanctuary nomination submitted in 2014 by Governor Walker on behalf 

of the State of Wisconsin and the coastal communities in the mid Lake Michigan 

region. 

This is a valuable and timely project that will reap rewards for generations to 

come. A sanctuary on this nationally recognized shoreline will add to Wisconsin’s 

own efforts to preserve and protect the historic treasures of this highly valued body 

of water. In addition it will provide significant educational opportunities for residents and students throughout the Midwest and attract thousands of visitors interested in experiencing this history up close and personal. The spotlight this will put 

on this unmatched resource will ensure the largest number of people gain a greater 

understanding and commitment to this precious ecosystem we all share and depend 

upon. 

We also recognize the potential creation of businesses and jobs that will be a significant economic plus to our region. Perhaps most importantly, the collaboration between this diverse but now-connected string of coastal cities and towns that was 

sparked by this new NOAA designation model, promises even greater benefits moving forward. 

We fully support the designation of the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary—the first in Lake Michigan and in Wisconsin. It will be a proud accomplishment that will bring benefits to this lakeshore region, the State of Wisconsin and the United States of America. 

Yours Truly 

BETSY ALLES, 

Executive Director. 

THE MARINER’S MUSEUM AND PARK

Newport News, VA, June 23, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast 

Guard, 

I write today to express my strong support for the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program [NMSP] and for continued funding and expansion of the Monitor National 

Marine Sanctuary [the Monitor Sanctuary]. I have the distinct honor of serving and 

leading The Mariners’ Museum, one of only two museums that the U.S. Congress 

first designated as ‘‘America’s National Maritime Museum’’ in the FY 1999 NDAA.1

The Museum’s longest running and most important programmatic partnership is 

our work with NOAA to conserve over 200 tons of USS Monitor artifacts in the 

world’s largest conservation effort of its kind. Every year, tens of thousands of visiVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
77 

tors from across the Nation and the world visit the Museum to see the USS Monitor 

and to connect with its powerful stories. 

Every single day, my team and I labor to advance a critically important facet of 

the NMSP’s mission: the preservation of our Nation’s incredibly rich maritime cultural heritage. Each year, Tens of millions of our Nation’s proud citizens visit the 

more than two dozen battlefields and historic sites that preserve and commemorate 

our most hallowed grounds. The preservation of these National military parks and 

landmarks—the actual physical spaces and the objects contained within them— 

plays a key role in sustaining the social capital that, in turn, sustains us as a nation: reminding our citizens, no matter their individual differences, of their shared 

history as a people. In that same way, the NMSP preserves similar special places 

in our Oceans. Since 1975, the NMSP has protected the wreck site of the Civil War 

ironclad U.S.S. Monitor off the coast of North Carolina, WWII sites in the Pacific 

at Midway Island, and dozens of other nationally significant shipwrecks in our Nation’s waters. 

As you know, the NMSP is the broadest governmental effort to preserve such 

spaces, objects, and heritage both at sea and in our national waterways. Ours is a 

maritime nation as much as anything else, and many of our shared history’s greatest achievements in exploration, commerce, and defense occurred on the water. Our 

Museum is uniquely situated—not far from Jamestown Settlement (exploration). 

sharing Hampton Roads with the world’s greatest natural deep water port (commerce) and the world’s largest complex naval installations (defense)—to recognize 

the value of the work of the Monitor Sanctuary, Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary, and the entire National Marine Sanctuary system to preserve our Nation’s maritime cultural heritage. 

It is perhaps best to make the case for these sanctuaries by considering our Nation without them. We, as a government and a people, could not and would not 

abandon Gettysburg or Yorktown or any similar piece of land, allowing curiosityseekers with metal detectors to scavenge the objects that hold the stories of the sacrifice that occurred there, or the natural elements to erase the structures and landscape that mark those sacred places. We would not allow these moments in our 

shared history to pass forever from our collective consciousness. Simply put, the 

NMSP is our Nation’s commitment to the moral imperative that we preserve the 

space, objects, and heritage made sacred by the lives of American merchant mariners, sailors, watermen, travelers, voyagers, and scores of others on the water. 

The work of conserving artifacts from the USS Monitor will continue for several 

more years. As the artifacts complete their extensive treatment, we display them 

in the award winning galleries of the Museum’s USS Monitor Center. The USS 

Monitor Center opened in 2007 and was the result of a decades-long partnership 

with NOAA and the NMSP. Just a couple of weeks ago, we were honored to host 

more than a dozen World War II veterans of the USS Indiana (service in the Pacific 

Theater) for a tour of The Mariners’ Museum (see attached photo). The galleries 

they most wanted to tour were the USS Monitor galleries. First, virtually the entire 

surface and submariner Navy traces its legacy to the USS Monitor’s transformation 

of naval warfare. Second, and most importantly, visitors to the Museum begin the 

USS Monitor story at a case that honors the two sailors whose remains were recovered in the turret. The USS Monitor story is a story about the grit and sacrifice 

of people. Hearing the stories of sailors, our USS Indiana vets that visited a couple 

of weeks ago saw their own stories in the stories of ‘‘The Monitor Boys,’’ and several 

expressed their gratitude that our Nation had memorialized the lost Monitor sailors. 

Over sixty percent of The Mariners’ Museum visitors report that the USS Monitor 

Center is their favorite exhibit. A similar number tell us that they come to the Museum specifically to see the USS Monitor. We conserve the USS Monitor artifacts 

in our Batten Conservation Complex, which was designed to allow visitors to see 

the active conservation treatment in progress. Consistently, the opportunity to see 

the ongoing conservation of the USS Monitor turret, the Dahlgren guns, and the 

steam engine rates as the most impactful part of the USS Monitor experience in our 

galleries. We have built a program for school children called ‘‘Clash of Armor’’ that 

teaches elementary schoolchildren about the Battle of Hampton Roads between the 

USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia. That program is one of our top on-site, in-person school programs. Despite the fact that history—and especially Civil War history—comprises less and less of current grade school curricula, the story of the USS 

Monitor and its crew continues to resonate. 

A significant reason for the continuing importance and relevance of the USS Monitor story is the many, many components of its story. Most of our visitors and students are surprised to learn that seven African Americans served on the USS Monitor crew, that the USS Monitor was built in only 100 days in a feat of industrial 

innovation, or that the science and technology built into the USS Monitor continues 

78 

to influence naval architecture and engineering today. For example, just last year, 

the American Society of Mechanical Engineers named the Worthington Pump a historic landmark in recognition of its influence on the field of mechanical engineering. 

Additionally, both the History Channel and the Travel Channel have, within the 

last nine months, filmed episodes on the USS Monitor for two popular series airing 

on their respective channels. 

Last year, following eight years of research, NOAA began a formal review of the 

current boundaries at the MNMS to consider an expansion to protect the gravesites 

of nearly 1,600 men lost off the North Carolina coast during WWII’s Battle of The 

Atlantic. This expansion would protect nearly 60 vessels in the only WWII battlefield in American waters. I urge you to support this effort as The Mariners’’ Museum will. Earlier this year, the Monitor Sanctuary team presented a program to 

the largest Museum audience that we have had in recent memory. Several hundred 

Museum guests heard about the team’s work on the Battle of the Atlantic—specifically, the stunning imagery of one of the most unique wrecks in history: the German 

U–576 lying on the ocean floor just 240 yards from its prey, the SS Bluefields. The 

presentation forecast just how powerful the expansion of the Monitor Sanctuary 

could be. Throughout, the Monitor Sanctuary team told stories of the U.S. merchant 

mariners who had literally dozens of ships blown out from under them in a matter 

of months. By protecting and documenting the Battle of the Atlantic wrecks, we 

have the opportunity to honor the nearly-forgotten sacrifice of merchant mariners 

and other sailors during our Nation’s ascension to a global leadership role. Allowing 

these mariners’ service and stories to fade is unacceptable. 

In summary, the NMSP as a whole and the Monitor Sanctuary in particular are 

providing an invaluable service to our Nation. We live in a time where we are all 

painfully aware of the forces that pull our communities—our nation—apart. Our 

shared maritime heritage—our connection to the water—is a powerful force that 

binds us together. I urge you to make NMSP funding and the expansion of the Monitor Sanctuary a priority. 

Sincerely, 

HOWARD H. HOEGE III, 

President and CEO. 

June 23, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast 

Guard, 

As the 2017 Volunteer of the Year honored by the National Marine Sanctuary 

Foundation during Capitol Hill Ocean Week last week, I wish to share my understanding of the benefits of national marine sanctuaries for myself, my community, 

public access, science and economy from sanctuaries using my involvement with the 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) in Cape Cod Bay, MA as 

an example. Since my retirement in 2013 I have volunteered at SBNMS as a 

member of the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), a contributor to a research program involving satellite-based telemetry of a seabird (Great Shearwater) and a participant in a citizen science program that systematically surveys seabirds in the 

sanctuary 5–6 times a year. Prior to my retirement I was a seabird biologist from 

1976–1983 both in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. 

Through my own prior research in this area and that with SBNMS since 2013 

it is obvious to me that calanoid copeods and a forage fish called sand lance 

(Ammodytes dubius) form a core fabric of the food web for seabirds, whales, dolphins, seals and selected species of ground and mid-water fishes (which includes 

mackerel, cod and sea herring) in the southwest Gulf of Maine. A recent workshop 

(May 2017) was convened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Parker River 

National Wildlife Refuge in Newburyport, MA to gather academics, research groups, 

and government agencies to discuss available information on sand lance, detail existing research underway and by whom, and compile a publishable document on the 

importance and vulnerability of this forage fish in this marine community. To this 

end the New England Fisheries Council was strongly encouraged to pursue an ecoVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
79 

system-based policy for their management of harvested groundfish and mid-water 

fisheries. The basis of this encouragement is that is necessary to factor in take/harvest for all marine predators (i.e., seabirds, whales, seals) when setting limits for 

commercial harvesting of specific fisheries, not just limits (i.e., takes) for commercial 

fishermen. None of this recognition and action would have been possible if were not 

for the SBNMS and their internal research program on sand lance and its connection to marine predators such as seabirds and marine mammals. 

The SAC at each national marine sanctuary provides representation for a most 

diverse group of stakeholders. It represents commercial interests (e.g., fishing, whale 

watching, diving, etc.), law enforcement, government agencies (state and federal) 

and research organizations. From my perspective as a seabird biologist and volunteer of the year, SBNMS represents an important marine area that requires the recognition and protection as afforded by its national marine sanctuary status. All interests have a collective reason to meet and discuss its health and future. 

SBNMS offers educational outreach to surrounding public schools and partners 

with other educational groups to reach and educate the public, in particular youth, 

about what is available to them in the sanctuary. 

SBNMS is diverse both economically and environmentally. The commercial shipping lanes that take cargo to and from Boston move through the sanctuary. In the 

past decade SBNMS was able to enable a change in the earlier configuration of the 

shipping lanes, which had been routed through the most heavily used southern part 

of Stellwagen Bank by endangered Right and Humpback Whales, to an area that 

mostly avoided these critical feeding areas without undo hardship to commercial 

shipping. This change provided an immense environmental benefit in that it reduced the number of whales struck by cargo vessels. 

During my trips on the citizen science seabird surveys, I have met a diverse background of volunteers. These volunteers included professional engineers, scientists, 

educators, students and bird watchers who wanted an opportunity to have an experience on the ocean, learn new skills, or create new networking contacts to get a 

job or start a career. In all cases, they took personal time off from their existing 

work in order to participate. 

There is a growing community of people from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean 

that come to Massachusetts to see marine mammals (whales, dolphins and seals) 

and seabirds. Commercial ventures for whale-watching and sea birders exist in 

coastal towns from Boston to Provincetown. These boat operators primarily go to 

SBNMS. Recreational and charter fishing tours also go to SBNMS. These commercial enterprises advertise SBNMS in their marketing. The towns in which these enterprises operate benefit from dining and parking revenue. 

America’s national marine sanctuaries, including my very own Stellwagen Bank 

in Massachusetts, are national treasures that protect natural, cultural and historic 

resources in the ocean and Great Lakes on behalf of the American people for current 

and future generations. I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide this 

letter of support for our Nation’s national marine sanctuaries. 

Sincerely, 

KEVIN POWERS, 

Volunteer, 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 

VISIT SHEBOYGAN

Sheboygan, WI, June 23, 2017 

Subcommittee on Marine Sanctuaries: Fisheries, Access, the Environment, and 

Maritime Heritage 

c/o U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Honorable Subcommittee Members: 

I am writing to you to express my support for the current National Marine Sanctuary nomination and designation processes. Marine sanctuaries are robust drivers 

of economic activity, reaching far into the fabric of local communities with a positive 

impact on an area’s socio-economic environment. As you may know, a freshwater 

National Marine Sanctuary is currently in the designation process, with boundaries 

spanning the shorelines of three Wisconsin counties: Ozaukee, Sheboygan, and 

Manitowoc. As a stakeholder in the marine sanctuary process, I have been researching the pros and cons of sanctuary designation to the local community. I have found 

the vast number of opportunities and benefits far exceed any possible negative impact, and impending the current designation process would hinder many future ecoVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
80 

nomic expansion plans now underway. For example, the Wisconsin State Department of Tourism currently released a report indicating that the economic impact of 

the tourism economy in our tri-county area is more than $330 million. Analyzing 

the effect of a National Marine Sanctuary on available market share, the economic 

impact of tourism could increase by 92 percent, bringing the full economic impact 

to more than $650 million. 

Marine Sanctuaries are not just for divers, snorkelers, marine biologists, and scientists; they reach into all facets of a community including tourism, education, 

workforce development, economic development, and historic preservation. For example, impending National Marine Sanctuary designation has prompted plans for the 

construction of a new visitor in City of Sheboygan, Wisconsin. However, the new visitor will not just be a place to stop for options on dining, but it will feature handson interactive exhibits about historic shipwrecks that part of the area’s rich maritime past. It will also feature an exhibit that outlines mankind’s exploration 

progress from sea to space, along with robotics exhibits that mimic remote operated 

vehicle (ROV) exploration. There are plans for shipwreck boat tours, featuring submerged passenger hulls and cameras that allow residents and visitors a chance to 

explore Lake Michigan below the surface. There are also plans to host regional ROV 

competitions, which offer the next generation of scientists and engineers to show off 

their potential in invention and innovation. 

I realize it may not be intuitive to connect a National Marine Sanctuary to such 

far-reaching ideas, but please allow me to briefly explain how a marine sanctuary 

is interconnected to the well-being and economic welfare of a community. First in 

the area of tourism: As you know from your own experiences, tourists demand higher quality services than most people do in the course of their day-to-day lives. Quite 

simply, when we’re on vacation, we splurge. The impact of tourist quality demand 

also means a higher quality of life for a destination’s residents. Second in the areas 

of workforce develop and education: In particular, Sheboygan County depends on its 

largely privately-owned manufacturing economy that is in sync with its tourism 

economy as the heavy drivers of economic robustness. 

However, the area’s manufacturing sector is currently facing a workforce shortage. Competing for talent is not an easy game; but one of the best resources of a 

future workforce is the current K–12 population. Nevertheless, manufacturing depends on tech and robotic operations. Thus, it is crucial to inspire students to explore science, technology, mathematic, and engineering (STEM) fields in order to ensure a future sustainable workforce, and National Marine Sanctuaries are incubators of STEM education, not only on their own or through visitor centers, but in 

partnering with local schools and becoming an intricate part of local, regional, and 

national STEM projects and competitions. Finally, when recruiting workforce needs 

from other areas, potential recruits consider the quality of life, education, community services, and general landscape and offerings of an area before making a decision to move and join a new community. In the simplest of terms, people want to 

be where they have the best chance for prosperity, and a National Marine Sanctuary that raises the quality of life through tourism, education, and future development contributes greatly to that opportunity. 

On a larger, national scale, one might not think that a National Marine Sanctuary could have so much impact on a local community, but the impending sanctuary for our community is sparking new construction and infrastructure projects, 

expanded marketing projects, expanded school curriculum at the K–12 and college 

levels, new collaboration between tri-county governments and municipalities, as well 

as new strategies for workforce development. All of these projects and movements 

have two things in common: They spend and circulate money through the economy, 

and they create jobs. 

As the National Marine Sanctuary designation along the eastern shoreline of Wisconsin continues to move through its formal designation process, have no doubt that 

the community realizes how much of an asset the sanctuary will be to the area. We 

hope you can see the same opportunities that marine sanctuaries offer to the socioeconomic status of the communities of which they are a part. If you would like to 

see firsthand how a National Marine Sanctuary can impact economic development, 

I invite you to visit Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and tour our coastline. Six hundred and 

fifty million dollars in visitor spending may not seem like much when compared to 

a national budget, but it provides tremendous economic benefit to our area. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

AMY L. WILSON, PH.D., 

President/CEO 

Visit Sheboygan, Inc. 

81 

June 25, 2017 

TO: U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and Coast Guard 

FROM: Surfrider Foundation San Luis Obispo, California 

Our local Chapter and International Surfrider Foundation stand in strong support 

of all existing National Marine Sanctuaries as protected ocean habitats essential to 

the survival of diverse marine life, fishing resources, and recreational opportunities. 

National Marine Sanctuaries protect some of the most beautiful, sensitive, and endangered ocean environments and protect them from the threats of oil and gas development which pose severe environmental threats. 

We are also specifically in favor of the proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary off the San Luis Obispo coast which will connect the Channel Islands and Monterey NMS’ to create one of the largest marine sanctuaries to protect 

one of the most sensitive and diverse marine environments on earth. 

We encourage you to stand strong against any threats to dismantle, reduce, or 

minimize existing and future National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

BRAD SNOOK, 

Chair, 

Surfrider Foundation San Luis Obispo. 

Karl Kempton 

Oceano, CA 

June 26, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chair, 

Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and 

Coast Guard, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Sullivan and Committee Members, 

I have worked for ocean protection since 1990, first as an Energy Planner for San 

Luis Obispo County and then as an activist. The effort was and remains twofold: 

(1) stopping oil development in Federal waters off county waters, and (2) creating 

the National Marine Sanctuary between the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to fill the unprotected gap 

of a marine environment meeting the requirements of nationally significant oceanographic, geological, biological and archaeological characteristics. 

Sanctuaries are designated in recognition of nationally significant oceanographic, 

geological, biological and archaeological characteristics. These are very special 

places. Given the threats to our coasts and oceans from offshore oil and gas development, urban and rural pollution, global climate change and so much more, we must 

strengthen and keep intact our national marine sanctuaries. They are a vital part 

of building resilience for our planet. 

National marine sanctuaries protect natural resources while encouraging responsible public access to our vital ocean. Protecting this habitat preserves the beauty 

of nature and our local economies. Sanctuaries attract funding for science, research 

opportunities and educational institutions. Sanctuary outreach and education focuses on stewardship of the land, the watersheds, the intertidal, the coast, the ocean 

and our planet. Sanctuaries increase the collaboration of government agencies and 

non-governmental organizations leveraging diminishing funding into more efficient 

outcomes. The extensive volunteer support expands the natural resource protection 

and forges strong bonds between sanctuaries and their communities. In my region, 

there is considerable public and business support for the Monterey Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary because it has proven to be a good partner for protecting the 

beauty of our coast while bringing so many visitors here to witness the grandeur 

of nature. 

Beyond the socioeconomic and ecological benefits, the advantages of the national 

marine sanctuary system are numerous. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires that communities drive the process of designating a sanctuary. Intensive public participation is a vital part of ongoing sanctuary management. There is transparency in decision making; adaptive and accountable management along with research, education and enforcement responsibilities. National marine sanctuaries enVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
82 

courage public access and usage by both commercial and recreational interests while 

protecting the resources that all benefit from. There is tremendous support in our 

area for marine protection which includes support for a National Marine Sanctuary. 

Sincerely, 

KARL KEMPTON, 

Health Food Grower. 

PORT WASHINGTON TOURISM COUNCIL, INC. 

Port Washington, WI, June 26, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Our marine sanctuaries are national treasures that protect natural, cultural and 

historic resources in the ocean and Great Lakes on behalf of the American people. 

Sanctuaries are home to millions of species, protect some of the world’s oldest and 

largest corals, preserve more than 300 shipwrecks that are part of our Nation’s maritime heritage, and promote public access for exploration and world-class outdoor 

recreation and enjoyment for future generations. 

Sanctuaries provide a science-based, bottom-up, community driven approach for 

conservation and stewardship while balancing multiple sustainable uses that benefit 

our communities and economy. Across all national marine sanctuaries, about $8 billion annually is generated in local, coastal economies from diverse activities like 

commercial fishing, research, education and recreation-tourist activities. Over 42 

million people visit sanctuaries each year. 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 national marine sanctuaries. 

The Lake Michigan waters off the coast of Port Washington are part of a sanctuary that is currently in the designation process. Tourism is one of the largest drivers of economic development in our city. Our tourism is strongly based on its maritime heritage. With two lighthouses, and two museums featuring the stories of Lake 

Michigan, the creation of a National Marine Sanctuary right off of our shores will 

only enhance that. 

We urge you to continue your support of the National Marine Sanctuary program, 

and the current designation process. 

KATHY TANK, 

Executive Director. 

Manitowoc, WI, June 26, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

I am writing in support of the nomination to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for a national marine sanctuary in Wisconsin’s Lake 

Michigan waters. As envisioned, the sanctuary would protect and interpret maritime heritage resources, including 33 known shipwrecks, in an 875-square-mile area 

off the coast of Ozaukee, Sheboygan and Manitowoc counties. 

A national marine sanctuary would build on the accomplishments by the State of 

Wisconsin in protecting Great Lakes shipwrecks and educating the public about 

Wisconsin’s nationally significant shipwrecks. A sanctuary would provide important 

83 

benefits to this area, including increased tourism and a wide variety of educational 

programs to share the history of Wisconsin’s shipwrecks and maritime heritage with 

the public. It would be of great benefit to the State, local communities, and user 

groups to be part of the NOAA National Marine Sanctuary System. 

The creation of a sanctuary off Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan Coast would add to our 

tourism product and give us new attractions to draw visitors to our destination. We 

are ready to assist in whatever way possible to move this project forward. 

The Manitowoc Area Visitor & Convention Bureau is a private non-profit corporation designated with promoting the Manitowoc Area as a destination for leisure 

travel, meetings, sports tournaments, festivals and events. 

Sincerely, 

JASON RING, 

President, 

Manitowoc Area Visitor & Convention Bureau. 

GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE 

ALLIANCE DES VILLES DES GRANDS LACS ET DU SAINT–LAURENT 

RESOLUTION 05—2017M 

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE NOAA 

WISCONSIN–LAKE MICHIGAN NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 

Submitted by: Cities of Manitowoc, Port Washington and Sheboygan 

WHEREAS, Wisconsin’s Great Lakes contain some of the Nation’s most important 

natural, cultural, and recreational resources; and 

WHEREAS, in 2014 Governor Walker submitted a successful sanctuary nomination to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on behalf of 

the State of Wisconsin and the coastal communities in the proposed sanctuary; and 

WHEREAS, in January 2017, based on the sanctuary nomination, NOAA proposed designation of the 1,075 square-mile Wisconsin-Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary which would protect 37 historic shipwrecks and related underwater 

heritage sites. Eighteen of the sites are listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places, and archival research indicates that as many as 80 shipwrecks are yet to 

be discovered; and 

WHEREAS, the State of Wisconsin and local communities have invested in documenting, preserving, and celebrating Wisconsin’s rich maritime heritage; 

WHEREAS, NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary System was established in 1972, 

and today the program serves as the trustee for a system of 13 national marine 

sanctuaries and two national monuments encompassing more than 600,000 square 

miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters; and 

WHEREAS, national marine sanctuaries draw regional, national and international tourism, impact regional and local economies, and are featured and promoted in national magazines, journals, books, and films; and 

WHEREAS, national marine sanctuaries support a wide variety of educational 

programs to share the history of Great Lakes shipwrecks with the public and promote science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM); and 

WHEREAS, national marine sanctuaries protect nationally significant resources, 

such as Wisconsin’s Great Lakes shipwrecks; and support research and documentation to better understand, protect, and increase public appreciation and access to the 

well-preserved shipwrecks; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed Wisconsin-Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary 

would leverage the investment made by the State and Mid-Lake Michigan harbor 

towns to enhance tourism as a key component of economic development in the State 

and this region; and 

WHEREAS, local resources and infrastructure may be used in partnership with 

NOAA to complement and enhance a national marine sanctuary in the State. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence 

Cities Initiative endorses and strongly supports the designation of the ‘‘Lake Michigan—Wisconsin National Marine Sanctuary’’ on behalf of the State of Wisconsin; the 

Cities of Two Rivers, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Port Washington and Mequon; and 

84 

Manitowoc, Sheboygan, and Ozaukee Counties currently under consideration by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Signed this 14th day of June 2017 

DENIS CODERRE, 

Chair, 

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 

Mayor, 

City of Montre ́al. 

FRIENDS OF MALLOWS POTOMAC NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

June 26, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the Friends of Mallows Potomac National Marine Sanctuary. Although Mallows Bay has not yet been designated, a locally driven Friends group has already been established in support of the proposed 

National Marine Sanctuary. 

Mallows Bay is located in Charles County, Maryland on the Potomac River about 

30 miles south of Washington, D.C. and is the site of the largest concentration of 

sunken ships in the Western Hemisphere. Mallows Bay and the surrounding Potomac River have a diverse collection of nearly 200 known historic shipwreck vessels 

dating back to the Civil War and perhaps the Revolutionary War. The majority of 

the ships are the remains of over 100 wooden steamships, known as the ‘‘Ghost 

Fleet’’, that were built for the U.S. Emergency Fleet between 1917–1919 as part of 

the World War I war effort. Their construction at more than 40 shipyards in 17 

states reflected a massive national wartime effort that drove the expansion and economic development of communities and related maritime service industries including the U.S. Merchant Marine. 

In September, 2014, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, at the urging, and with the support of the citizens of Charles County, submitted a nomination 

to NOAA to designate Mallows Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary. In October, 

2014, President Obama announced the nomination had been accepted. Since then, 

the draft designation documents have been completed, a notice of intent to designate 

has been issued, and public comment received. The public comments are now being 

compiled. Completion of the final Environment Impact Statement, Management 

Plan, and Federal Regulations is expected by October, 2017. 

The designation of Mallows Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary could have a significant economic benefit to Charles County, as well as other counties bordering the 

proposed Sanctuary boundary. Although the population of Charles County is only 

around 157,000 people, the economic study area of the preferred alternative was a 

population of 4,170,639 people (Mallows Bay—Potomac River DEIS, 2016) and includes most of the MD/VA/DC metropolitan area. The study area is the geographical 

range where the social and economic impacts are anticipated to occur from the use 

of the Mallows Potomac National Marine Sanctuary. 

Leisure and hospitality is now Charles County’s second largest private employment sector. According to the Maryland Office of Tourism Development data, 

Charles County generated $184 million in tourism sales in 2013. The designation 

of Mallows as a National Marine Sanctuary is expected to dramatically increase 

tourism in Charles County, particularly in the relatively remote and underserved 

area of Nanjemoy in Charles County, where the main access site to the proposed 

sanctuary is located. The county park (Mallows Bay Park), which presently serves 

as the principal access point, has already seen a significant increase in use by 

kayakers, fisherman, and day trippers since nomination, despite the fact there are 

presently very limited interpretive facilities at the site. The exposure and national 

recognition that comes with National Marine Sanctuary designation will further Increase tourism and visitation and spawn business development, such as outfitters 

85 

for guided trips, kayak and small boat rental, increased hotel occupancy, increased 

restaurant business, and gas station and convenience store stops. 

The proposed Mallows Bay National Marine Sanctuary is using, as its model, the 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary on Lake Huron near Alpena, Michigan, 

which is also a National Marine Sanctuary centered around shipwrecks. Thunder 

Bay has been estimated to generate $100 million annually to the regional economy 

and support 1,500 jobs. The visitor center at Alpena sees over 60,000 visitors annually, which is remarkable for a site that is very remote and far from populated 

areas. The Washington Metropolitan Area, where Mallows Bay is located, has a population of over 6.1 million people. 

In summary, the designation of Mallows Bay/Potomac River as a National Marine 

Sanctuary will help preserve a piece of American history of World War I highlighting the role of the U.S. Shipping Board, the Emergency Fleet Corporation, and 

the creation of the Merchant Marine. This is a part of history that is little understood and has been lost over time, but is shared with communities all over the country that helped to build these ships. We believe the designation of Mallows Bay/Potomac River as a National Marine Sanctuary will become an engine for tourism, economic development, education, and interpretation. We urge your full support for the 

National Marine Sanctuary system and for the designation of additional sanctuaries. 

Sincerely, 

STEPHEN M. BUNKER, 

Chairman, 

Friends of Mallows Potomac NMS. 

COUNTY OF ERIE—OFFICE OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE

Erie, PA, June 26, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

As County Executive of Erie County, Pennsylvania—a community largely defined 

by its location on the southern shore of Lake Erie—I write to express the vital importance of National Marine Sanctuaries to communities across our great nation. 

The advantages of National Marine Sanctuaries, as collaborative partnerships that 

shore up local economies, might best be explained through Erie County’s story. 

Erie County’s rich maritime history began during the War of 1812, when its shipyards were used to construct the American fleet that protected our new nation. In 

later years, the fledgling port prospered, thanks to commerce and industry that 

flourished along the waterways. Today, even as manufacturing shifts have taken a 

toll on Erie County’s economy, the reinvigorated waterfront areas remain attractive 

to residents, tourists, and innovative new businesses. 

Erie County’s proposed Lake Erie Quadrangle National Marine Sanctuary would 

prove an invaluable designation in allowing Erie County to more fully capitalize on 

its potential as a Great Lakes port. The proposal, which enjoys broad support from 

local elected officials, businesses, nonprofits, and residents, would position Erie 

County as a destination for culture and heritage, education, research, and tourism. 

The proposed Lake Erie Quadrangle sanctuary would encompass nearly 200 shipwrecks, as well as historical sites, lighthouses, and museums, while preserving the 

county’s active sport fishing industry and vital port operations. 

The unique advantages of the National Marine Sanctuary System would provide 

necessary resources that bridge the gap between cultural preservation and economic 

opportunity. A sanctuary designation would prove to be the vital connection that 

would link Erie County’s disparate resources—including museums, lighthouses, 

shipyards, the U.S. Brig Niagara, and plentiful opportunities for recreation and scientific study—into a unified waterfront destination. Designating the Lake Erie 

Quadrangle would create opportunities for education and outreach, including both 

in-the-water shipwreck exploration and on-the-ground historic research. All told, the 

proposed sanctuary would inject a much-needed boost into Erie County’s burgeoning 

86 

tourism industry, enhancing our existing opportunities for fishing, boating, swimming and diving. 

Most vitally, the proposed Lake Erie Quadrangle National Marine Sanctuary 

would be a boon for Erie County’s small business owners, many of whom build their 

livelihoods on the tourists who spend money in our community. Michigan’s Thunder 

Bay National Marine Sanctuary, on Lake Huron, has resulted in growth to existing 

businesses, the creation of new businesses, and an increase in tax revenue. The 

Lake Erie Quadrangle sanctuary, if designated, would work together with Thunder 

Bay to highlight the importance of the Great Lakes Basin—the world’s largest surface freshwater system, and the source of nearly a quarter of the world’s supply of 

surface freshwater. Adding Great Lakes Basin assets to the National Marine Sanctuary System, which currently is almost entirely focused on ocean-shore sanctuaries, 

would further bring the advantages of a sanctuary to the interior of the nation, 

helping to reinvigorate so-called ‘‘Rust Belt’’ states like Pennsylvania and the entire 

Great Lakes region. 

National Marine Sanctuaries provide an opportunity for communities to best utilize their marine assets, leveraging local partnerships and on-the-ground resources 

into an engine for economic growth. The Lake Erie Quadrangle proposal began with 

just such a mission, bringing together a patchwork of interested parties with a common purpose: Expanding Erie County’s economic opportunities. Supporters include 

officials from local municipalities as well as from neighboring counties and states; 

environmental organizations, recreational groups, educational institutions and nonprofits; and economic development agencies and business owners. All came together 

to create and support the sanctuary proposal, knowing that such a designation was 

the best course for Erie County to not only protect one of its most important cultural 

assets—its maritime heritage—but also to capitalize on it as an economic driver. 

Though Erie County’s proposed Lake Erie Quadrangle National Marine Sanctuary 

awaits approval, the advantages of a National Marine Sanctuary are clear to our 

leaders, business owners, and residents. Erie County has witnessed the vast benefits—to economy, to preservation, and to community pride—that sanctuary designations have had on other similar communities, notably Thunder Bay, and remains 

confident that our region, too, could only be enhanced by receiving such a Federal 

designation. 

Sincerely, 

KATHY DAHLKEMPER, 

County Executive. 

COUNTY OF OSWEGO—OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

Oswego, NY, June 26, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard: 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit comment to the subcommittee regarding 

the National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) nomination process and the role an NMS can 

play in economic development. During development of the nomination for the Great 

Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA’s community-based nomination 

procedure proved to be a constructive and unifying process across several governments. Those interactions facilitated planning and the creation of common regional 

goals regarding maritime heritage, tourism, education and economic development. 

By way of background, the proposed Great Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary includes unique and significant submerged cultural resources within a corridor that is one of the most historically significant regions in the Great Lakes and 

the North American continent. Located in the southeast quadrant of Lake Ontario, 

this area and its tributaries provided food and transportation trade routes for indigenous peoples and early European explorers. During the co colonial period through 

the War of 1812, it was a strategic theater of conflict among European powers and 

the young American republic. Later, this region was critical to the development of 

the American west and our Nation’s industrial core and the westward of The area 

also served as a location of maritime innovation and invention, and was crucial in 

87 

the agricultural expansion of the 19th century. Within the nomination area there 

are an estimated 68 shipwrecks and three historic aircraft. Many of these are the 

oldest and only known of their type and exhibit intact architectural features, such 

as the Atlas, Bay State, Queen of the Lakes, Royal Albert, Roberval. Black Duck and 

the Lady Washington, which is the second oldest (1797) intact shipwreck discovered 

in the Great Lakes. The oldest is also in Lake Ontario, the Revolutionary War-era 

HMS Ontario (1780). 

Lady Washington, built during George Washington’s presidency (1797) rests intact, 

unresearched and vulnerable. www.shipwreckworld.com 

The community-based nomination process inspired the counties of Jefferson, 

Oswego, Cayuga and Wayne, along with the City of Oswego and the State of New 

York to embark together on this effort to preserve, protect, promote and create 

economies around such submerged historic resources. A multi-entity task force was 

created to develop the nomination, comprised of local governments, educational institutions, community planning and non-profit interests, all with technical support 

from state agencies. To fulfill the nomination requirements, these entities worked 

together to assess resources, management capabilities, community assets, and develop common goals regarding potential educational opportunities and economic development prospects surrounding the proposed NMS. The process also spurred a 

public education effort to secure wide-spread support for the proposal, bringing the 

potential of these untapped submerged resources to the forefront in the public mind. 

The positive public reaction was immediate. Attached is a list of public and business 

entities, local through international, which submitted written support for the proposal. 

Conservation and education are important goals of an NMS. Designation of an 

NMS here would increase the reach and capabilities of existing national and local 

educational and research institutions such as, but not limited to: New York Sea 

Grant, several colleges of the State University of New York, Syracuse University, 

the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, the NYS Museum, 

Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor, the NYS Department of Environmental 

Conservation (DEC), Great Lakes Research Consortium, and not for-profit museums 

and local school districts that operate on the shores of southern and eastern Lake 

Ontario. 

Economic development is a key factor in the proposed NMS. In 2015, the County 

of Qswego submitted the concept of having a NMS designated in the south-eastern 

quadrant of Lake Ontario to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Central New York Regional 

Economic Development Council (CNYREDC) through a process developed to identify 

ideas/projects that have the potential to transform the region in any one of a dozen 

or so predetermined business sectors. Our application discussed the potential economic impacts that might be brought about by the various activities that would likely result from an NMS designation. It suggested that the project would require some 

civic infrastructure enhancements in the lakeside communities that would see the 

greatest influx of visitors if the sanctuary nomination proposal is approved. Oswego 

County identified 


627CHURC1.eps
88 

$10 million as an approximate number that could fulfill those needs. The 

CNYREDC recognized that this NMS initiative could, in fact, be ’’transformative’’ 

and selected it as one of a very few in the tourism sector to be highlighted in their 

5-year plan. The regional plan was subsequently selected as one of the top three 

regional development plans in New York State and the region was awarded $500 

million over a five-year period to implement their strategies. 

This region is already an international destination for sportfishing, diving, boating 

and sailing, marine recreation, and heritage tourism. An NMS would increase tourism and economic opportunity, particularly along the Seaway Trail—a 518-mile National Scenic Byway that travels directly along the entire length of the proposed 

sanctuary corridor. Increased tourism would have exponential effects on the communities, and the shore-based resources within them that support the education, research, exploration and access to these nationally significant submerged cultural resources. 

The collaborative nomination process not only allowed the communities to develop 

a common vision of what they wanted the NMS to be, but also what they don ’t 

want it to be. In their heritage-based nomination, the communities and the State 

proposed no new regulations that would hinder other forms of economic development nor interfere with the current commercial uses of the waterways, ports and 

harbors. 

On behalf of the nomination task force and the proposal’s sponsors, I want to express appreciation for NOAA’s constructive and forward-thinking nomination process. 

I also respectfully urge the subcommittee to recommend to the Executive that 

NOAA be allowed to continue accepting nominations, and that those already in 

NOAA’s inventory be allowed to continue through the designation process. 

Respectfully, 

PHILIP R. CHURCH, 

County Administrator, 

Chairman, 

Great Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary Nomination Task Force. 

89 

APPENDIX

List of Supporting Entities, Letters of Support, & Petitions 

State of New York 

Governor Andrew Cuomo 

Sponsoring Communities 

Cayuga County Legislature 

City of Oswego Common Council 

Jefferson County Legislature 

Oswego County Legislature 

Wayne County Board of Supervisors 

Elected & Appointed Officials 

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

Congressman Richard Hannah 

Congressman John Katko 

State Senator Patty Ritchie 

Assemblyman William Barclay 

Assemblyman Robert Oaks 

Oswego County Legislature Chairman Kevin 

Gardner 

City of Oswego Mayor William Barlow 

Legislator Margaret Kastler, Oswego County 

Legislator Shawn Doyle, Oswego County 

Legislator Roy Reehil, Oswego County 

Town of Scriba Supervisor Ken Burdick 

Oswego County Administrator Philip Church 

Local Governments 

New York State Association of Counties representing all 62 counties of NYS 

North Shore Council of Governments representing V Central Square, V. Cleveland, T. 

West Monroe. T. Hastings 

Salmon River Council of Governments representing V. Parish, T. Parish. T. Albion. T. 

Amboy, T. Orwell 

Town of Ellisburg 

Town of Henderson 

Town of Huron 

Town of Montezuma 

Town of Ontario 

Town of Oswego 

Town of Sterling 

Village of Sandy Creek 

International 

Onondaga Nation 

Ontario Underwater Council 

Save Ontario Shipwrecks 

Government Agencies 

New York State Canal Corporation 

Oswego City-County Youth Bureau 

Oswego County Emergency Management 

Town of Huron Historian 

Village of Sodus Point Historian 

Wayne County Historian 

Education 

Cayuga Community College 

Center for Instruction, Technology & Innovation—representing nine school districts 

Finger Lakes Community College 

Great Lakes Research Consortium 

Hannibal Central School District 

Jefferson Community College 

New York Sea Grant 

Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse 

Sandy Creek Central School District 

SUNY College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry 

SUNY Oswego President 

SUNY Oswego Dean, College of Liberal Arts 

and Sciences 

SUNY Oswego Chemistry Department Chair 

Museums and Libraries 

Children’s Museum of Oswego 

Friends of Fort Ontario, Inc. 

H. Lee White Maritime Museum 

Safe Haven Holocaust Refugee Shelter Museum 

Archaeology & Historical 

New York Archaeological Council 

Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor 

Georgann & Michael Wachter, Erie Wrecks 

Half-Shire Historical Society 

Heritage Foundation of Oswego County 

Joseph Zarzynski, Maritime Archaeologist & 

Independent Scholar 

Preservation Association of Central New York 

Town of Ontario Historical & Landmark Preservation Society 

Sodus Historical Society 

Williamson-Pultneyville Historical Society 

90 

Stewardship Organizations 

New York State Conservation Council Inc. 

Oswego County Environmental Management 

Council 

Oswego County Federation of Sportsmen’s 

Clubs 

Sterling Nature Center 

Economic Development 

Cayuga County Office of Tourism 

CenterState CEO 

Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board 

County of Oswego Industrial Development 

Agency 

Greater Oswego-Fulton Chamber of Commerce 

Jefferson County Local Development Corporation 

Ontario Chamber of Commerce 

Operation Oswego County, Inc 

Oswego County Tourism Advisory Council 

Pulaski Fanner’s Market and Preservation & 

Revitalization of Pulaski 

Pulaski-Eastern Shore Chamber of Commerce 

Town of Hastings Community Development & 

Tourism Office 

Tug Hill Commission 

Visit Syracuse 

Wayne County Industrial Development Agency 

& Economic Development Corp. 

Wayne County Economic Development and 

Planning 

Wayne County Tourism 

Recreational User Groups 

Above & Below The Water Training Center 

Auburn Skin Divers Association 

Captain Duane Morton 

Eastern Lake Ontario Salmon and Trout Association 

Oswego Yacht Club 

Businesses 

Broadwell Hospitality Group 

Fairpoint Marina 

Kallet Theater and Conference Center 

Pleasant Beach Hotel 

Rainbow Shores 

Selkirk (Salmon River) Lighthouse & Marina, 

LLC 

Sunoco Ethanol 

Universal Metal Works 

Other 

Creekside Tenants Association 

CNY Arts Center 

Al and Shaun Knopp 

Oswego Harbor Festivals Inc. 

Pulaski Lodge No. 415 

Deanne Hall, Director of Faith Formation including a 57-signature petition and 33 student letters and drawings 

Richard S. Shineman Foundation 

Ms. Mary Spencer-Geer 

Change.org online petition of signatures (121) 

MARATHON BOAT YARD MARINE CENTER

Marathon, FL, June 26, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chair, 

Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, 

and Coast Guard, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Sullivan and Committee Members: 

As a Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary community leader, I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to address Congress about the importance of protecting our 

precious marine resources. I chair the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council and can tell you how critical the health of our surrounding waters 

is to the island chain, the State of Florida, the United States and the international 

community. Having been a member since 2004, chair for 7 years and now back in 

that position my perspective is broad and based significant experience. 

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary spans 2,900 square nautical miles 

from south of Miami westward to encompass the Dry Tortugas, excluding Dry 

Tortugas National Park. It includes the world’s third largest coral reef, mangrovefringed islands, shipwrecks and other archeological treasures as well as more than 

6,000 species of marine life. Recreational and commercial activities in and around 

the sanctuary are the lifeblood of the Florida Keys and contribute greatly to the 

economy of Florida and this country. 

We are in the Marine Business and know that a healthy, vibrant marine environment is critical to the success of our business. 5 million visitors are annually drawn 

to the only barrier reef in the continental USA and to our small chain of islands, 

our economy is the environment. It requires special and carefully protections to insure our children and future generations have the opportunity to enjoy this very 

unique part of America. Our history, Maritime Heritage, fishing, access and healthy 

environment needs continued protection. 

91 

The members of our advisory council-be they mayors, fishermen, dive operators 

or tourism and hospitality proprietors-value the balance between our strong economy and protecting the very resources that fuel it. We are currently reviewing and 

evaluating the rules and regulations in our sanctuary. We are finding that some 

areas have rebounded due to restricted use, while other areas suffer from overuse, 

disease and the effects of climate change. The review is a painstaking, multi-year 

process undertaken with the expertise of Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

staff and partner agencies including state and Federal fish and wildlife officials. The 

task is arduous, but entirely necessary to maintain the equilibrium between man 

and nature. 

I strongly encourage continued management of all the nationa1 marine sanctuaries and monuments. Thank you for considering our views. 

Sincerely, 

BRUCE POPHAM, 

Chair, 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, 

Owner, 

Marathon Boat Yard and Marine Center. 

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

26 June 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast 

Guard, 

I am writing from a unique firsthand perspective of the strong impacts of our National Marine Sanctuaries program from its very beginning. As a 16-year-old Duke 

sophomore, I had the chance to help prepare for an oceanographic voyage, and then 

unexpectedly to join that voyage in which we discovered the shipwreck of the USS 

Monitor in 1973. Immediately after determining this was Monitor, our discovery 

team drafted an initial document for a proposal that evolved through collaboration 

with the state of North Carolina, for the first national marine sanctuary, formally 

approved in 1975. 

As the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary progressed, those of us who were students now had support for accelerated technological research and scientific studies. 

Many students, both graduate and undergraduate, were involved. Scientists and engineers who had their start in this inaugural marine sanctuary were among the top 

of their peer groups, inventing new marine scientific models published in places like 

Science, and creating new technology that accelerated the field of underwater robotics. The students within the sanctuary research efforts fanned out into superb careers in research universities, technology firms, and the marine service industries. 

The core point is that the Monitor Marine Sanctuary and its successors have become 

accelerators in the science and technology sectors. For a relatively small cost, marine sanctuaries fuel innovation, regional economic growth, and technological sophistication. 

This pattern of scientific and technological vigor witnessed off North Carolina for 

the Monitor Sanctuary has also been vividly evident in the formerly economically 

distressed region of Thunder Bay. This marine sanctuary has provided magnificent 

growth in jobs and tourism and now is considered a magnet for serious divers from 

across the world. 

In a beautiful symmetry, four decades after Monitor, I am now involved in supporting scientifically both the emerging Mallows Bay Marine Sanctuary, where I 

now have research students of my own hard on innovative studies, and also in supporting the remarkable opportunity provided by the Great Lake Ontario National 

Marine Sanctuary proposal. Ontario is a priceless natural system that, like the region off Hatteras, preserves an underwater museum of our Nation’s history. It also 

has the advantage that it is accessible from the shore. Those of us in the research 

universities of the Ontario region have been highly supportive of its potential for 

92 

both STEM innovation and large-scale tourism. Syracuse University affirms its 

energetic support for the Ontario project, and we envision that many students will 

contribute their research here, as they have in the other sanctuaries. 

The National Marine Sanctuary program is a gem. I have seen firsthand the 

power for a 16-year-old of the dramatic boosts sanctuaries can give to talented students across economic backgrounds. It has been an honor to be a scientist that has 

been part of the sanctuaries’ research since the inception of the program—and also 

to have mentored many students whose careers have also been accelerated by sanctuaries. The latest such student, a talented 21-year-old, has only just begun her research. She and I are both part of a lineage of true accomplishment and moxie 

among the thousands of engineers and scientists trained in the sanctuaries. 

I urge you to continue to provide support to this program with such a distinguished record—and one that is keeping the United States at the forefront. 

Sincerely, 

CATHRYN R. NEWTON, 

Special Advisor to the Chancellor, 

Professor of Earth & Interdisc. Sciences, 

Syracuse University. 

CITY OF SHEBOYGAN

Sheboygan, WI, June 26, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard: 

I am writing to you on behalf of the City of Sheboygan to express our support 

for the current National Marine Sanctuary nomination and designation process. Protection our greatest treasures and heritage as a national asset is very important and 

should be protected. The City of Sheboygan is excited about the opportunity to be 

part of the Wisconsin National Marine Sanctuary currently in the designation process. The City looks forward to the future opportunities that are potential with the 

sanctuary designation in economic development and tourism. Marine Sanctuaries 

are not just for divers, snorkelers, marine biologists and scientists. They reach into 

all facets of a community including tourism, education, workforce development, economic development, and historic preservation. 

Since the process to establish a National Marine Sanctuary has begun for the mid 

Lake region of Wisconsin, we have heard from international travelers and businesses looking to relocate or travel here to experience the sanctuary and our coastal 

communities. It should also be noted that currently Sheboygan County faces a workforce shortage. With over 3,000 positions open in the County and unemployment 

rates of less than three percent, in order to fill positions strong efforts are being 

made to recruit people from other large metro areas in our large, locally owned 

manufacturing companies. Competing for talent is not an easy game, but one of the 

best resources for future workforce is the current K–12 population. Offering resources in our schools for students to experience STEM education and the ties to 

the sanctuary provide another reason why students would be more likely to stay in 

the community than join a neighboring community that offers better quality of life 

assets. 

As the National Marine Sanctuary designation along the eastern shore of Wisconsin continues through the designation process, I urge you to continue to support 

these efforts. These efforts circulate money through the economy, creates jobs and 

protect our past through numerous socio-economically avenues. In closing, I want 

to personally say thank you to our two Wisconsin delegates, Congressman Johnson 

and Congressman Baldwin who have supported this designation from the very beginning and continue to be huge supports of this designation. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL VANDERSTEEN, 

Mayor. 

93 

NORTHWEST ASSOCIATION OF NETWORKED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEMS

Seattle, WA, June 26, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

I am writing in support of the network of National Marine Sanctuaries that our 

Nation has preserved. I currently sit in the Research seat of the Advisory Council 

for the Olympic Marine National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS). I see first-hand how 

enmeshed the Sanctuary is from all the Advisory Council participants who hail from 

diverse sectors including Fishing, Tourism/Economic Development, Marine Business/ 

Ports, Conservation, Education, as well as Research. Also included on the Council 

are representatives of Tribal, Federal, State, and Local governments. Sanctuaries 

serve as a focal point for regional conversations that can enhance all of these topics 

and assure that any difficult conversations are had on a local level, in person, and 

with good discussion. Aside from the protecting critical natural habitat, the Sanctuaries are living resources because of their inclusion of these representatives. The 

fact that this is happening locally nationwide is a true service that is making a difference. 

I also write from one of the eleven Regional Associations of the U.S. Integrated 

Ocean Observing System, the Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing 

Systems (NANOOS), which I direct. OCNMS has been an original member of 

NANOOS since 2003, and plays a key role in providing coastal ocean data to the 

Pacific Northwest that can be used for understanding diverse issues, such as Harmful Algal Blooms or Marine Heat Waves. In turn, their connection to the community 

extends the use and awareness of our data portal and products, increasing the use 

of ocean data to provide safe and efficient maritime operations, increase coastal hazard preparedness and risk reduction, and foster coastal stewardship for recreation 

and tourism. 

Please continue to ensure that these national treasures are preserved. Thank you 

for your work on this. 

Sincerely, 

JAN NEWTON, 

NANOOS Executive Director, 

Senior Principal Oceanographer, 

University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory. 

Cambria, CA, June 27, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chair, 

Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and 

Coast Guard, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Sullivan and Committee Members, 

Elephant seals began coming to the beach at Piedras Blancas in 1990. Since those 

few first arrived, the rookery has grown to over 22,000 seals. They are never all 

there at once, but come and go during the year. 

As do the tourists! They come from across the United States and around the 

world. Visitor materials are presented in several languages, to serve the people from 

Asia, Europe, South America and Africa who come to visit. 

The county and private landowner Hearst Corporation have partnered to create 

a viewing place for the public to see the seals. It is free, open 24/7, and staffed entirely by volunteer docents. The people of California hold this in trust for the world. 

It’s a wildlife success story. Rather than conflict between wildlife and the public, 

it is a showcase for the public to learn about marine mammals, the importance of 

the ocean, and the inspiration it brings to our lives. 

94 

Central Coast History 

The Piedras Blancas elephant seal rookery is relatively new. The seals were first 

reported on the beach near the lighthouse in 1990. The first birth of a pup was observed in 1992. More seals arrived every year, soon causing problems along the 

highway. 

Drivers stopped along Highway 1. Excited visitors climbed down to the beach to 

get close to the seals. Occasionally a seal parked himself on the highway. Collisions 

killed seals and totaled cars. The situation was dangerous for both sides. Something 

had to be done. 

Usually, this kind of interaction at the border of humans and wildlife does not 

end well for the critters. People generally want their way, and the wildlife gets 

killed or chased off. Instead, local people stepped up and worked with government 

agencies and the Hearst Corporation to create a solution. 

The individuals who envisioned a happy outcome for both seals and the public 

founded Friends of the Elephant Seal. They began their training program for 

docents in 1997, so that the public could be welcomed to observe the animals without risk to either side. People learn about the seals and their ocean habitat, and 

the seals live their lives unmolested. A Win-Win. 

The Piedras Blancas elephant seal rookery has become a major tourist attraction. 

Hundreds of Thousands come from around the world to see the seals. It’s an unusual opportunity for the public to see a herd of wild animals without having to 

take a safari. 

Save the Sanctuaries 

The area is within the Monterey Bay national Marine Sanctuary. Please support 

the Marine Sanctuary program. It benefits local businesses as well as being an example to the world of responsible stewardship. 

Thank you. 

CHRISTINE HEINRICHS. 

CHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY

Annapolis, MC, 27 June 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fishe1ies, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: Proposed Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary 

Chairman Sullivan and Ranking Member Peters: 

On behalf of the Chesapeake Conservancy, I am writing in support of the designation of the Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary. Chesapeake 

Conservancy is a non-profit organization that works to conserve land and increase 

public water access along the Great Rivers of the Chesapeake Bay. 

Thirty miles south of Washington, D.C. in Charles County, Maryland is Mallows 

Bay, where the wooden hulls of scores of World War I era ships lie clustered in the 

Potomac River. These shipwrecks tell an important chapter in American history 

when the U.S. was on the brink of becoming the greatest shipbuilding nation in the 

world. Once a junkyard, these wrecks have become unique habitat for birds, fish, 

and other marine life and an amazing place for outdoor recreation activities like 

fishing and paddling. 

A National Marine Sanctuary designation for Mallows Bay-Potomac River would 

be transformative for Charles County and for the Chesapeake Bay. National Marine 

Sanctuaries provide recognition and bring international attention for the historic 

and unique resources that comprise U.S. marine heritage. They also leverage new 

opportunities for recreation and tourism and become economic drivers in the communities where they are located. 

Each year in Maryland, 10 million people visit state parks and generate a total 

economic impact of over $650 million. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, Maryland outdoor recreation generates $9.5 billion in consumer spending, 

85,000 direct Maryland jobs, $2.8 billion in wages and salaries, and $686 million 

in state and local tax revenue. A National Marine Sanctuary would directly contribute to the recreation and tourism economy in Maryland and importantly, it 

would be a boon for the local economy of Charles County. 

95 

There is broad public supp01i for the sanctuary; during the public comment period 

1,100 out of 1,300 of the comments were in support. Community residents recognize 

that the Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary would enhance 

awareness and interest in the site, create new recreation and tourism opportunities, 

and contribute to economic growth in Charles County. We urge you to recognize the 

strong local support for this proposal and issue a favorable opinion on the proposed 

sanctuary. 

Sincerely, 

JOEL DUNN, 

President and CEO, 

Chesapeake Conservancy. 

ALPENA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Alpena, MI, June 28, 2017 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast 

Guard, 

Washington DC. 

Dear Senator Peters, 

The Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard recently held a hearing with a focus on national marine 

sanctuaries. Although I was not able to complete this letter prior to that hearing, 

I wish to submit comment on the topic now. 

As you are aware, Alpena is location of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (TBNMS). We couldn’t be prouder to be the home of this outstanding facility 

and area. The TBNMS has developed into a very important part of our region’s 

economy with its impacts on tourism, education, and business development. The 

TBNMS impacts tourism because it is a draw for a variety of tourists from divers 

to water and shipwreck enthusiasts. The TBNMS has had a tremendous impact on 

education. From the research that happens to the students who are now involved 

in Remote Operated Vehicle competitions, TBNMS has helped to grow our STEM 

knowledge and educational opportunities. The TBNMS has also had an impact on 

business development as we are starting to see businesses start and become more 

successful based on the interests surrounding TBNMS. TBNMS helps drive the desire to explore the Sanctuary through kayaking, diving, and other activities. 

Our community is stronger with greater pride because of the TBNMS. We have 

a much broader and deeper understanding/knowledge of our history and heritage because we are now able to understand not only what is above ground, but what lies 

below the water. A one-page letter is not nearly enough to communicate how strongly we feel about the value of the TBNMS, but we hope you begin to understand the 

impact the Sanctuary has had on our community. 

Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts. 

Sincerely, 

JACLYN A. KRAWCZAK, 

President/CEO. 

BOSTON HARBOR CRUISES

Boston, MA, June 28, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast 

Guard, 

I am writing to you on behalf Boston Harbor Cruises, a New England-based whale 

watching company, to support the benefit of National Marine Sanctuaries to our 

business, the environment, and the tourism industry. 

96 

As business owners and advocates for New England’s thriving tourism industry, 

we recognize the economic value of having healthy coasts and oceans. In 2012, tourism and travel brought in over $17 billion in direct spending in Massachusetts 

alone, and the whale-watching industry was worth about $26 million per year to the 

New England economy. New England is one of the country’s leading regions for the 

boat-based whale-watching industry, treating about one million visitors every year 

to close encounters with an array of charismatic marine mammals. 

The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary supports a remarkable richness 

and diversity of ocean life. The unique bathymetry of Stellwagen Bank attracts an 

array of protected and endangered ocean wildlife, such as marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, and sea birds, including the critically endangered North Atlantic Right 

Whale, which demonstrates Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary’s importance as a foraging area for key marine species. 

We value healthy protected area for our marine mammals, and fully support the 

National Marine Sanctuary Program. 

Thank you, 

LAURA HOWES, 

Director of Marine Education and Conservation, 

Boston Harbor Cruises. 

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Lansing, MI, July 10, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast 

Guard: 

In 1981 Lake Huron’s Thunder Bay became Michigan’s first state Underwater 

Preserve dedicated to our state’s maritime stories and the shipwrecks that tell those 

stories. In 2000 the bay became our Nation’s first freshwater National Marine Sanctuary. It is jointly managed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and the State of Michigan. 

At first there were quite a few sceptics, but in 2014 the Thunder Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve expanded to nearly 10 times its original size. Why? Because the people who lived in the counties adjacent to the sanctuary saw the increased tourism and related business development it brought to 

Northeast Michigan and used the 2012 sanctuary management planning process to 

ask to become part of the success. 

The sanctuary protects history-laden shipwrecks, but its positive impact on Michigan goes well beyond the maritime history it researches, preserves and shares. Area 

children see the potential for science careers they never imagined. Their community 

college offers certification in the growing field of marine technology. Local students 

build Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs) that operate underwater. They not only win 

competitions with their work, but also drew the international ROV competition to 

Michigan two years ago. 

Because of the sanctuary, Alpena, a community that lost one of its largest economic drivers, in 2002, is booming. Drawing more than 80,000 visitors annually, the 

sanctuary’s Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center features more than 10,000 

square feet of interactive exhibits and has become a major tourism destination in 

the region. Enterprises from kayak rentals to a glass-bottom tour boat, from shops 

and restaurants to a new hotel and a brewery, are all part of the town’s new economy. Entrepreneurs attracted to the positive spirit and opportunities of the town are 

creating diverse businesses that could be anywhere, but chose Northeast Michigan. 

Because of the sanctuary, researchers from across the country come to Thunder 

Bay to test methods of surveying the shipwrecks. What they learn drives the mission of the sanctuary, but it also develops technology with many other offshore uses. 

This summer, NOAA and Alpena Community College will use unmanned aircraft 

systems (UAS) to capture shallow water high-resolution images. The University of 

Delaware will join NOAA in working with wide-sweeping sonar devices for deepwater exploration. 

97 

Michigan Technological University will follow this with targeted sonar exploration 

using an autonomous underwater vehicle. East Carolina University and National 

Marine Sanctuary divers will work with video that can produce 3D photogrammetric 

maps of underwater features. 

In summary, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary has been an economic 

driver, an educational resource and a community building force for Michigan. To reduce this program in any way, much less to eliminate the increased access to its 

benefits provided by the expansion of its boundary, would be a large step backwards 

for the people of Michigan. 

KEITH CREAGH, 

Director. 

cc: Mr. Mark Hoffman, Chief Administrative Deputy, MDNR Ms. Sandra Clark, 

MDNR 

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS

San Francisco, CA, July 10, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished members of 

the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, 

I write to express the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations’ 

(PCFFA) strong support for the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

(GFNMS) and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries (CBNMS). These sanctuaries have been developed, expanded, and managed in a manner that supports the 

coexistence of commercial fishing activities with marine conservation in a transparent and equitable manner. They are the pinnacle examples of what spatial management of our country’s oceans and marine resources should exemplify. 

PCFFA is the largest organization of commercial fishermen and women on the 

West Coast. For forty years, we have been leading the industry in assuring the 

rights of individual fishermen and fighting for the long-term survival of commercial 

fishing as a productive livelihood and way of life. PCFFA represents fifteen local 

fishermen’s associations on the West Coast from Santa Barbara to the Canadian 

border, collectively comprising the largest commercial fishing organization on the 

West Coast. 

Years ago, it was PCFFA that first suggested inclusion of CBNMS as part of a 

proposed Point Reyes/Farallon Islands sanctuary in the early hearings on the creation of the sanctuary. That recommendation was not followed, but later following 

undersea photographs of Cordell Bank, Cordell Bank was made a stand-alone marine sanctuary. In subsequent years, PCFFA has worked with current and former 

Members of Congress and Marine Sanctuary staff on the proposed boundary expansion of the northern boundaries of the two sanctuaries in order to ensure traditional 

fishing activity, as well as the fishing grounds, would be protected under such a 

boundary expansion. 

PCFFA’s support for these sanctuaries is based on the desire to protect the important fishing grounds and upwelling area encompassed under the expansion of these 

two sanctuaries. More importantly, however, it is based on the fishing community’s 

long and cordial working relationship and collaboration with past and present management and staff of the two sanctuaries. In fact, there is probably no other government entity—State or Federal—that PCFFA and the fishing community has worked 

closer with than the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries. 

PCFFA has long recognized and lauded the Sanctuaries’ charge to protect the resources of their waters. To that end, CBNMS and GFNMS have developed a highly 

successful method for dealing with conflicts between fishing and the protection of 

sanctuary resources in the few times a conflict has arisen. When fishing conflicts, 

or their potential, have arisen at CBNMS or GFNMS, sanctuary management has 

contacted the fishing community, communicating the nature of the problem with 

any proposed solutions, soliciting input from the fishing community, including 

thoughts on the nature of the conflict and fishing community recommendations for 

a solution. Both sides have worked in good faith and in mutually respectful manner. 

If regulatory action was needed, (i.e., beyond an agreement with the fishing commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
98 

nity), the two sanctuaries have sought resolution by taking the issue to the California Fish & Game Commission for a state managed fishery, or the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council for a Federal managed fishery. 

This approach has proven highly successful, minimizing interference with fishing 

while maximizing sanctuary resource protection. The sanctuaries have recognized 

the authority and expertise of the fishery management entities; the fishery management entities have recognized the sanctuaries’ charge to protect sanctuary resources. Indeed, the approach by the two sanctuaries to fishing issues should be a 

model for the nation; it is the primary reason these two sanctuaries are held in high 

regard by both the fishing community and fishery management entities. National 

Marine Sanctuaries, when managed properly as these two Sanctuaries have, allow 

economic activity to occur and even enhance it. 

PCFFA appreciates and fully supports the continuing ban on offshore oil and gas 

development within sanctuary waters. We are strongly opposed to the authorization 

by a sanctuary superintendent (or, in fact, that superintendent’s superior) of the 

waiving of sanctuary rules and the permitting of, among other things: 

• Renewable or nonrenewable energy development, which could include petrochemical, wave, or offshore wind energy development in sanctuary waters. This 

is particularly troubling since such development could be harmful to sanctuary 

resources and there is no compelling reason along the West Coast for this form 

of offshore energy development given the potential for solar and wind development onshore; 

• Disposal of sewage water; 

• Dumping; 

• Mining; 

• Seismic airgun surveys; 

• Installation of cables on the seafloor; 

• Expanded shellfish mariculture using non-native species; 

• Offshore finfish aquaculture with the potential for escapes, marine mammal 

interactions, pollution (e.g,, fecal material from these concentrated ‘‘feed lot’’ 

types of operation, pesticides used to control sea lice, herbicides used to control 

algae growth), spread of disease or parasites into the wild, and conflicts with 

navigation. 

Allowing these types of non-traditional and harmful activities is contrary to the 

purpose of a marine sanctuary and all would be harmful to our fish stocks and fisheries. Equally troubling is the potential for circumventing current sanctuary engagement in fishery management through efforts to designate certain sanctuary waters 

as special areas (e.g., research) and then close them to fishing. 

GFNMS, CBNMS, and other well designed and well managed Sanctuaries have 

long enjoyed the support of commercial fishermen throughout the United States. 

The important protections that they bring must remain intact and robust in order 

to safeguard the working families of California’s coastal communities. I strongly encourage you to support the sanctuaries that enjoy fishermen’s support as you evaluate their impacts to the marine economy and the living marine resources of the 

United States. 

Sincerely, 

NOAH OPPENHEIM, 

Executive Director. 

NEW YORK AQUARIUM

Brooklyn, NY, July 11, 2017 

Senator DAN SULLIVAN, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Senator GARY PETERS, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard, 

Washington, DC. 

Re: Comment Letter regarding Senate Commerce Committee June 27, 2017 Hearing 

on Marine Sanctuaries: Fisheries, Access, the Environment, and Maritime 

Heritage 

The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) submits the following comments as a 

part of the record for the Senate Commerce Committee’s June 27, 2017 hearing on 

99 

Marine Sanctuaries. As the Commerce Committee conducts its oversight of the National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) Program, WCS encourages committee members to 

continue to reaffirm and support the stakeholder driven National Marine Sanctuary 

nomination and designation process. 

WCS saves wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature. To achieve our mission, WCS, 

based at the Bronx Zoo, harnesses the power of its Global Conservation Program 

in nearly 60 nations and in all the world’s oceans and its 5 wildlife parks in New 

York City, visited by 4 million people annually. WCS combines its expertise in the 

field, zoos and the aquarium to achieve its conservation mission. To ensure a safe 

place for wildlife in New York’s waters, the Wildlife Conservation Society’s New 

York Aquarium conducts scientific research, advocates for species and habitat protection, promotes sustainable ocean use, and cultivates local marine conservation 

stewardship. 

There are currently 13 sanctuaries in the NMS network, from the Olympic Coast 

to the Florida Keys. Each sanctuary, managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is dedicated to the conservation of unique and valuable marine ecosystems as well as economic, cultural and historical resources. And 

while all the sanctuaries emphasize resource protection and decision-making based 

on the best available scientific and socioeconomic data, they are managed with local 

input from stakeholders to address their own individual issues and needs. The longterm success of the NMS network is due in large part to the devotion to local input 

and needs. They provide diverse opportunities for public use and education, collaborative management, economic growth, commercial and recreational fishing, and scientific exploration. 

The sanctuary nomination process that NOAA oversees is built on this same 

strong foundation of stakeholder and community engagement with multiple, transparent opportunities for dialogue. From the very beginning, NOAA expects communities nominating a marine area to build support from the public, multiple and diverse ocean users and local decision-makers. By creating a process that relies on 

local stakeholder input and support from the very beginning, NOAA is best ensuring 

the long-term community support that forms the foundation for success of a new 

NMS. 

With a long-term commitment to research in the New York Bight and after conducting several months of public, stakeholder and decision-maker outreach, WCS’s 

New York Aquarium engaged in NOAA’s new process for designating a NMS by submitting a proposal to create the Hudson Canyon National Marine Sanctuary. To 

support the nomination, WCS built a diverse group of stakeholders that includes 

aquariums, NGOs, local businesses, elected officials, members of the public and others in the effort to nominate Hudson Canyon for sanctuary status. WCS also met 

with representatives from the commercial and recreational fishing industry. Based 

on those meetings, WCS recommended that fisheries in and around Hudson Canyon 

continue to be regulated through existing regional and Federal entities, not through 

a National Marine Sanctuary designation. NOAA’s community-based approach to 

the nomination process had a positive influence on the nomination and we believe 

that it will also have a very beneficial effect on the sanctuary itself if created. 

WCS firmly believes that marine sanctuaries provide a science-based, communitydriven approach for conservation and stewardship while balancing multiple sustainable uses that benefit our communities and economy, including recreational and 

commercial fishing and sustainable tourism. Sanctuaries also provide a place-based 

approach to increase public access to the ocean, expand opportunities for marine research, and monitoring, and support the development and dissemination of educational programming and materials. A Hudson Canyon National Marine Sanctuary 

designation would extend many of these benefits to the residents of New York and 

New Jersey. 

WCS would like to also note concerns about President Trump’s Executive Order 

Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy and in particular its requirement that oil and gas reserves be assessed for sanctuaries designated or expanded during the last ten years as well as for the newly nominated sanctuaries. 

Nationwide, existing marine sanctuaries contribute $8 billion to local coastal and 

ocean-dependent economies from diverse sectors like commercial and recreational 

fishing, research, and tourism-related activities In the Mid-Atlantic, tourism, recreation, and living resources represents approximately 93 percent and 70 percent of 

the state ocean economy in New York and New Jersey, respectively. These important economic activities, dependent on healthy ocean ecosystems, could be threatened by oil and gas exploration and development in the region. 

The New York Bight’s local marine waters support a world-class metropolitan region, a rich maritime history, and highly productive fisheries, meriting recognition 

100 

as a national treasure. A National Marine Sanctuary in these waters would provide 

opportunities for tri-state communities to advance sustainable use and conservation 

of our local waters. WCS asks that you support the community driven nomination 

and designation process and help ensure it continues so that new sanctuaries, including in Hudson Canyon, can provide special places for Americans to enjoy and 

use today while securing an ecological legacy for generations to come. 

Thank you, 

JON FORREST DOHLIN, 

Vice President and Director, 

Wildlife Conservation Society’s New York Aquarium. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

ERNEST WEISS

Question 1. Mr. Weiss, can you share any examples from Alaska where the existing fisheries management system is adequately protecting fisheries and habitat resources yet you are forced to fend off the threat of sanctuaries or monument designations in the absence of adequate scientific justification? What can we do here 

in Congress to minimize the potential for these problems in the future? 

Answer. The Aleutian Island National Marine Sanctuary proposed by PEER in 

December 2014 would have engulfed all of the Aleutian Islands and Bristol Bay as 

well as most of the Alaska Peninsula. It should be noted that there are already significant fishery and habitat protections in the region that were adopted through the 

rigorous scientific and public process of the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council. Over 95 percent (277,100 nm2) of the Aleutian Island fishery management 

area is closed to bottom trawling to protect benthic habitat including coral communities. Additionally, there are other habitat areas of particular concern in the region 

and fishery closures and vessel transit restrictions for the protection of Steller sea 

lion populations. A good resource displaying some of the many marine protected 

areas in Alaska can be found at this link: http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/ 

helpful_resources/inventoryfiles/AK_Map_090831_final.pdf 

Congress can and should recognize the Regional Fishery Management Council 

process in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) as the prevailing system to develop 

fishery and fish habitat protections and regulations, with possible advisory input 

from marine sanctuary managers. 

Question 2. Are you aware of any efforts by outside stakeholders or Federal officials to advocate for public sanctuary nominations to be considered for national 

monument designations? 

Answer. I am not personally aware of any efforts to designate any National Marine Monuments. I am aware that the National Marine Monument designation process seems to require considerably less public process than either the Regional Fishery Management Council process or the National Marine Sanctuary process. And 

that is a chilling thought. 

Question 3. Does the indirect use of sanctuary stature, in advocating for fishing 

restrictions in other state and Federal processes, constitute a violation of the science 

and public process requirements of the national standards found in the MSA? 

Answer. I am not sure if the Sanctuary process violates MSA. In my opinion it 

does conflict with, and potentially undermine the Council process and the MSA National Standards. The Regional Fishery Management Councils work hard under 

MSA to balance the sometimes competing National Standards, while also adhering 

to the National Environmental Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

and the Endangered Species Act. 

Question 4. Under EO 13795 the Trump Administration is re-examining a number 

of sanctuary and monument designations. For example, the Northeast Canyons and 

Pacific Remote Islands National Monument designations took nearly a total of 60 

million acres off the table from commercial fishermen with the stroke of a pen and 

no public or scientific processes to justify or even evaluate these long term & 

impactful restrictions. Let me ask the PANEL, in your opinions as marine stakeholders, is this an appropriate way for the Executive Branch to manage large tracts 

of our marine environment? 

Answer. I believe that the public process and scientific method of the Regional 

Fishery Management Councils is the most appropriate method to manage our marine environment related to fishing. Executive actions should not be used to manage 

fishery resources. The normal marine sanctuary nomination process under the limits of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act is preferred. However, the June 13, 2014 

Final Rule in the Federal Register ‘‘Re-establishing the Sanctuary Nomination ProcVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
101 

ess’’ should be rescinded or revised by the Administration to prevent the influx of 

nominations we have seen in the Aleutians and elsewhere around the country, 

which could well develop into potential monument designations. 

Question 5. Can any of you share an example where Sanctuary management advocated for or implemented fishing restrictions that were consistent—or not, with 

Magnuson Act process and requirements? 

Answer. Since there are no National Marine Sanctuaries currently in Alaska, I 

cannot comment. I can say that the Sanctuary Nomination process is not fully consistent with the National Standards in MSA that the Regional Fishery Management 

Councils strive to uphold. 

Question 6. Would you be in favor of Congress more clearly clarifying who manages fishery resources in marine sanctuaries? And would the preferred ruling statute be the Magnuson-Stevens Act? 

Answer. Yes, I would support Congressional clarification on which is the controlling statute. The law should be clear that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the ruling 

authority regarding fishery and habitat marine resources. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

ERNEST WEISS

Question. Cultural and Maritime Heritage Resources in Sanctuaries: National Marine Sanctuaries protect non-fishery resources in addition to fisheries in some sanctuaries across the country. For example, Thunder Bay Sanctuary in Michigan protects historic shipwrecks and maritime heritage from degradation. In your written 

testimony, you note that you believe the regional fishery management councils 

should take the lead on managing resources of national significance like our national sanctuaries. How would the regional fishery management council approach 

take into account cultural and maritime heritage resources unrelated to fishing? 

Answer. Thank you for the question regarding my testimony to the Subcommittee 

on June 27, 2017 regarding marine sanctuaries. My experience and testimony mainly pertains to the fisheries of Alaska and the waters of the North Pacific. In regards 

to fisheries regulations for Federal waters, I believe that the Regional Fishery Management Council, with a rigorous public process and best science approach, should 

be the lead authority. 

There are no National Marine Sanctuaries in the North Pacific, however the 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council has put in place many protections and 

fishing restrictions to preserve fishery and non-fishery resources including coral 

communities. 

The many Steller sea lion protection areas in the Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea 

and the Gulf of Alaska are considered National Heritage conservation. These thousands of nautical square miles of protected areas employ fishing restrictions adopted 

through the Fishery Management Council process. 

I agree that the National Marine Sanctuary Act is an appropriate tool to protect 

historical shipwrecks of national significance. I recently enjoyed reading about how 

the very first marine sanctuary was created to protect the civil war ironclad USS 

Monitor. The problem is when sanctuaries are used to protect expansive marine 

spaces, and fisheries management is undertaken within the boundaries absent critical scientific and public processes. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

CAPTAIN SCOTT HICKMAN

Question 1. Fishing regulations vary depending on the Sanctuary, can you outline 

the fishing regulations imposed on the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary and how you think they have affected the economy in the region? 

Answer. The current fishing regulations for the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary impose very stringent restrictions on commercial fishing, while 

not prohibiting commercial fishing activities all together. Certain gear types, like 

bottom longlines are prohibited as well as anchoring within the sanctuary. This is 

understandable, as fishermen are supportive of protecting coral communities and 

understand their vital importance to the ecosystem. As it pertains to the current 

proposed expansion, these restrictions are very concerning when coupled with the 

large rectangular boundaries without coral communities. This leaves large areas of 

productive fishing grounds, void of corals, with no commercial fishing access. There 

are great opportunities to partner with industry to ensure coral protections while 

promoting access as well. Development and implementing a fishermen’s education 

102 

program and best use practices for fishermen wishing to utilize areas within the 

sanctuary boundary would be a great first step. 

Question 2. As part of the Advisory Council, you had a leadership role in the community in working closely with NOAA as the agency fulfilled its broad consultation 

requirements, which mandate that everyone from local governments to ‘‘other interested persons’’ have the opportunity to weigh in on the ‘‘terms of designation’’ of the 

marine sanctuary. 

a. How many years did this process take? 

b. At its conclusion, did you feel that the agency heeded any of the community 

and stakeholder suggestions? 

c. Did the structure of the Flower Garden Banks Marine Sanctuary reflect the 

suggestions of the consultants? 

Answer. 

a. I’m unsure of how many years this took place, but I do know that the topic 

of sanctuary expansion has been ongoing. Over 10 years considering the recommendation of a previous FGBNMS recommendation for expansion in 2007. 

b. Following the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it was 

clear to me that the agency heeded community and stakeholder suggestions when 

convenient to meet expansion aspirations. There have been many further discussions and recommendations since, and we shall see what recommendations were seriously considered and taken into account during a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, if any. This could be a betrayal of trust in a process based on stakeholder engagement. 

c. The structure of the sanctuary advisory council, and boundary expansion working group both reflect stakeholder groups and consultants in the process very well. 

Question 3. How do you think the process for future expansions could be improved? 

Answer. The process could be dramatically improved through the addition of some 

type of weighting of Sanctuary Advisory Council recommendations to the sanctuary 

superintendent. 

Question 4. Under EO 13795 the Trump Administration is re-examining a number 

of sanctuary and monument designations. For example, the Northeast Canyons and 

Pacific Remote Islands National Monument designations took nearly a total of 60 

million acres off the table from commercial fishermen with the stroke of a pen and 

no public or scientific processes to justify or even evaluate these long term & 

impactful restrictions. Let me ask the PANEL, in your opinions as marine stakeholders, is this an appropriate way for the Executive Branch to manage large tracts 

of our marine environment? 

Answer. This is not acceptable for mixed use areas belonging to the people of the 

United States of America. 

Question 5. Can any of you share an example where Sanctuary management advocated for or implemented fishing restrictions that were consistent—or not, with 

Magnuson Act process and requirements? 

Answer. The best opportunity for this would be in the consultation with the Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council recommendations on regulations in the expansion. This is ongoing and will ultimately be reflected in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Question 6. Would you be in favor of Congress more clearly clarifying who manages fishery resources in marine sanctuaries? And would the preferred ruling statute be the Magnuson-Stevens Act? 

Answer. It would be hugely helpful, as a stakeholder, to have a streamlined and 

well defined process of engagement and management responsibilities of fishery resources in National Marine Sanctuaries. The Magnuson Act serves as a monumentally successful piece of legislation and is responsible for the successful rebuilding and recovery of many of our nations’ fishery resources. It stands to reason that 

National Marine Sanctuaries be defined and recognized in their own authorizing 

act. But to the extent practicable, overlap and gray areas between the two should 

be kept to a minimum. 

103 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

CAPTAIN SCOTT HICKMAN

Question 1. Stakeholder Input: In your testimony, you detailed the importance of 

collaboration and listening that are inherent to Sanctuary Advisory Committees, 

such as the one on which you serve. Providing avenues for stakeholder input, such 

as through the Sanctuary Advisory Committees, and having community-driven processes are crucial parts of the National Marine Sanctuary program. With so many 

stakeholders and diverse groups represented, how are differences of opinion worked 

out to develop the solutions, referenced in your testimony? 

Answer. Collaboratively, with every stakeholder group having two representatives 

at our Sanctuary Advisory Council meetings. We establish either subcommittees of 

just SAC members, or working groups of SAC members AND outsider parties, to 

consider every major issues, such as boundary expansion, and reefing-in-place the 

legacy petroleum platform that was included in the sanctuary when created in 1992. 

The platform had been put there by Mobil in 1981, and we are in the last stages 

of reefing—its 60–400′ deep jacket in place. 

Question 2. Creating Economic Opportunities: Resources, whether cultural, scientific, or environmental, that National Sanctuaries preserve and protect can be the 

genesis of new beginnings with a sanctuary’s designation. The Thunder Bay Sanctuary completely transformed the City of Alpena, Michigan. The Sanctuary designation has given Alpena notoriety and provided resources through which to develop 

not just the city but the entire tri-county area into maritime cultural landscape. 

This rejuvenated an economy with $100 million in sales associated with sanctuary 

activities, $39.1 million in personal income to residents, $59.1 million in value 

added, and over 1,700 jobs. How does the Flower Garden Banks Marine Sanctuary 

affect your charter fishing business? 

Answer. Unfortunately, it pretty much restricts my commercial business from 

even fishing its deep flanks around the two main coral capped domes at 300’ or less. 

As more platforms are removed and not reefed around the sanctuary area, the deep 

flanks of these domes will be the only place to fish. Please try and get the BOEM– 

BSEE Rigs-to-Reef Program quickly improved and amended to allow for all the remaining petroleum production platforms in the GOM everywhere, to be reefed-inplace. They’ve removed 2,500 platforms in 10 years, and there are only 2,100 remaining. Within 5 years, the situation will soon be critical with only 25 banks along 

the shelf edge to fish, and a couple hundred platforms left, if that many. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

CAPTAIN JEREMIAH O’BRIEN

Question 1. In 2016 the Alaska Federation of Natives passed a resolution that opposes the creation of any national marine monument that, ‘‘jeopardizes the economic 

health and vitality of one or more rural communities reliant on commercial and/or 

subsistence fisheries’’ 

• Can you speak to the economic impacts marine sanctuaries have had in your 

region? 

• What about as it relates to infrastructure development? 

Answer. The actions of the Channel Islands and Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuaries (NMSs) have had largely negative economic impacts on recreational and 

commercial fishermen in the Central Coast of California. Most of this occurred as 

a result of these sanctuaries role in creating Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)—no 

or limited fishing zones—that identified the best fish habitat and removed much of 

it from fishing. I do not know what the dollar impact is from the Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) closures are, but I do know of one experience 

where a squid fisherman sold his boat after the CINMS/State closures, being so discouraged by his best spots being taken away, and by what he felt was a process 

stacked against fishermen. For the CINMS, the MPA effort in state waters utilized 

state law, but with great CINMS influence. The CINMS also changed its designation document and created a water column no-fishing zone in Federal waters—creating more lost fishing opportunity. 

For the Monterey Bay NMS, they also heavily influenced the state process to create no fishing zones. The state estimated the loss to just commercial fishermen at 

just under one million dollars per year, but a subsequent peer review of the state’s 

economic methodology showed that it likely greatly underestimated the cost. No accounting was provided for recreational fishing’s lost opportunities. Rec fishing is big 

business so I imagine the loss was about equal to commercial fishing. In this state 

104 

process, we lost 18 percent of state waters to MPAs, but an analysis showed that 

the 18 percent represented 45 percent of the best hard bottom habitat—where the 

fish are! We also had to spend @ $40,000 to conduct a FOIA on Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) records of its MPA role, and to provide science 

products to show there was no science basis for new MBNMS MPAs in Federal waters. 

I have heard that MBNMS regulations for dredging have cost the harbors dearly, 

but I don’t know the dollar cost. People, including researchers, who do anything that 

impacts the bottom or discharges have to get a permit from the sanctuaries. This 

takes time and has a cost to it. In terms of larger economic impacts, I believe that 

a survey of hotels and restaurants would show that very few jobs have been created 

because of the sanctuary status. People come to our area of California because it 

is beautiful, not because it is a sanctuary. When I hear numbers thrown out that 

‘‘sanctuaries generate 8 Billion dollars of economic growth’’, I have to laugh. The 

sanctuaries seem to be taking credit for the business income that already exists— 

sanctuaries don’t cause this. 

Regarding infrastructure development, there are sanctuary visitor centers in 

CINMS and MBNMS. My sense is that people visit them when they are in the area 

for other reasons—they largely don’t come to the area just to visit the centers. They 

provide information about sanctuary resources which is a good thing. I think the 

sanctuaries are trying to place weather info stations and signage at the harbors, a 

good idea. I do hope they stop sending sanctuary staff to exotic South Pacific Islands 

for ‘‘dive certifications’’. 

Question 2. Can you provide some examples of redundant fishing regulations in 

the Sanctuaries in the Pacific? 

Answer. As I have previously explained, most of the sanctuary’s actions have been 

in their using their stature and Federal funds, to influence the regulations of other 

agencies. The CINMS Federal waters MPA is an exception as that is a sanctuary 

regulation. I personally believe there is no environmental benefit to that MPA, so 

it was needlessly redundant to other management authorities which have stronger 

science capabilities. 

Regarding using National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) influence, please be aware 

that the MBNMS ignored the best available science on creating MPAs in the state 

process. They would not acknowledge the many other forms of fishing regulation 

and habitat protection that exist, so, in this way, the sanctuary’s actions were redundant and costly to fishermen. As I testified, I believe the fishing regulation in 

the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434, Sec. 304–a–5) is both redundant and in conflict with 

the requirements of the MSA. I hope Congress clarifies that the Marine Sanctuary 

Act (MSA) with its national standards prevails for fishing and habitat protection. 

Question 3. Do you have any recommendations for how we could reduce the duplicative bureaucracy when it comes to developing fishery regulations in Sanctuaries? 

Answer. Remove the ‘‘fishing’’ section from the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA). Additionally, place limits on the lobbying NMSs can do to other fishery 

management agencies. NMSs simply do not have the science capabilities nor the 

credible public process to be involved in fishery issues or issues that affect fishing. 

Question 4. Under EO 13795 the Trump Administration is re-examining a number 

of sanctuary and monument designations. For example, the Northeast Canyons and 

Pacific Remote Islands National Monument designations took nearly a total of 60 

million acres off the table from commercial fishermen with the stroke of a pen and 

no public or scientific processes to justify or even evaluate these long term & 

impactful restrictions. Let me ask the PANEL, in your opinions as marine stakeholders, is this an appropriate way for the Executive Branch to manage large tracts 

of our marine environment? 

Answer. NO. It bypasses the public process and good science. Fishermen in particular have sacrificed a great deal to get to sustainable fisheries only to have that 

disregarded by such an executive action. 

Question 5. Can any of you share an example where Sanctuary management advocated for or implemented fishing restrictions that were consistent—or not, with 

Magnuson Act process and requirements? 

Answer. I can only speak to my experience with the CI and MBNMSs. I don’t 

think anything they have done is consistent with the MSA and the way that the 

Regional Fisheries Management Councils (RFMCs) would be required to examine 

the need for a regulation like a closure. 

Question 6. Would you be in favor of Congress more clearly clarifying who manages fishery resources in marine sanctuaries? And would the preferred ruling statute be the Magnuson-Stevens Act? 

105 

Answer. YES. MSA should prevail and the fishing section of the NMSA should 

be removed. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER JR. 

Question 1. Creating Economic Opportunities: Resources, whether cultural, scientific, or environmental, that National Sanctuaries preserve and protect can be the 

genesis of new beginnings with a sanctuary’s designation. The Thunder Bay Sanctuary completely transformed the City of Alpena, Michigan. The Sanctuary designation has given Alpena notoriety and provided resources through which to develop 

not just the city but the entire tri-county area into maritime cultural landscape. 

This rejuvenated an economy with $100 million in sales associated with sanctuary 

activities, $39.1 million in personal income to residents, $59.1 million in value 

added, and over 1,700 jobs. In your testimony, you shared that across the National 

Marine Sanctuary system, about $8 billion is generated for local economies. What 

is the best way to encourage these types economic opportunities for other coastal 

communities? 

Answer. National Marine Sanctuaries have been enormously successful in generating new economic activity, as well as educating the public on the need for conservation and sustainability. Clearly, better and more comprehensive understanding 

and advertising of the overall value of a National Marine Sanctuary is in order, and 

much of that can and should be accomplished by the communities that are currently 

benefiting from the increases in both sustainability and economic activity. Users 

and beneficiaries are always very credible spokespersons. 

Question 2. Differences between Sanctuaries and other Marine Protected Areas: 

Your written testimony described an extensive designation process that only occurs 

after what sounds like an equally rigorous nomination process. Not all of our marine 

protected areas go through as an extensive series of hoops to be recognized. What 

characteristics makes sanctuaries unique from other protected areas? 

Answer. Sanctuaries are unique from other protected areas for a variety of reasons. First and foremost is the rigorous and inclusive community-based nomination 

process created to ensure a sanctuary is welcomed and supported into the area. 

Then the public designation process created by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

ensures that the sanctuary will provide coordinated management that complements 

existing authorities. Sanctuaries are designed to allow and encompass multiple activities and support a wide range of objectives which are ideally suited to the areas 

and the users alike. 

Question 3. Determining Restricted Activities: The Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary emphasizes protecting the shipwrecks, which allows for many other uses 

throughout the sanctuary. Who determines what will and will not be allowed within 

a designated sanctuary? 

Answer. The nomination and designation processes are very detailed and require 

multiple submissions, discussions, and public comments periods regarding the projected uses and purposes of a sanctuary. Complete public airing and discussion continues throughout the process. As with any other public activities in the United 

States, sanctuaries are subject to the laws of the land such as the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act itself, and such other directives including the Endangered Species 

Act, and the Magnuson–Stevens Fisheries Act for example. Sanctuaries also have 

management plan reviews once established that gather input from the community 

and the sanctuary advisory council on to adapt management of the area over time. 

Question 4. Resources in Sanctuaries: In my home state of Michigan, the Thunder 

Bay National Marine Sanctuary has allowed us to protect the part of Lake Huron 

known as ‘‘Shipwreck Alley’’. The unpredictable weather in this treacherous stretch 

of water has caused numerous shipwrecks over the years, and the cold, freshwater 

of the Lake has preserved a chronology of maritime heritage for us today. The historical and cultural resources preserved by the Thunder Bay Sanctuary are but one 

of the many types of resources Sanctuaries preserve and provide. Can you detail the 

variety of resources that our National Marine Sanctuaries provide us? 

Answer. Sanctuaries provide protection for a wide range of resources and objectives from historical to conservational. Resting places of ships important to our history like the Monitor and the Lake Huron ‘‘Shipwreck Alley’’ are included. Coral reef 

resources are essential parts of a number of sanctuaries and draw visitors who bring 

billions of dollars to local economies. Many sanctuaries include invaluable fishing 

and recreation areas popular with the public and critical for a sustainable future. 

The reasons for establishing a marine sanctuary include a long list of cultural, hisVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:15 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29977.TXT JACKIE
106 

torical, recreational, and biological purposes and goals. Each one is unique as stated 

in its specifically designed charter. The flexibility and multiple uses commonly included are originated and celebrated by the local users and supporters. 

Question 5. Synergies with other NOAA programs: One of the best assessments 

of the economic, cultural, and ecological benefits in the tri-county area boarding the 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary was completed through Michigan’s Sea 

Grant Program. When you were administrator how did you witness the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries interfacing with other NOAA offices and programs? And 

how do those synergies benefit communities? 

Answer. NOAA is a unique example of a national organizational structure that 

brings together the great majority of national programs and resources that relate 

to the ocean and atmosphere, including the biology and living resources. The Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries is an integral part of the National Ocean Service 

within NOAA and is fully integrated with related programs in other parts of NOAA, 

especially those within Fisheries and Research. Connection and consultation is a 

part of the NOAA gene structure. Many missions of NOAA are reliant on cooperative connections across and within the various NOAA line offices. These are exercised daily in NOAA’s continuing quest to serve the Nation with the best possible 

management of resources and programs within their multiple areas of responsibility. The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries was during my tenure, and remains, a poster child example of cross collaboration and cooperation. 

Question 6. Importance of All Benefits from Sanctuaries: From my visits to different sanctuaries, I have seen a variety of different benefits from protecting maritime heritage, cultural sites, fishing access, and conservation for threatened species; 

all dependent on the goals of each sanctuary. Sadly in April, the president issued 

an executive order that places a narrow focus on potential energy and mineral resources, but our sanctuaries provide numerous other uses and benefits beyond their 

energy resource potential. Can you elaborate on the importance of these other benefits to communities served by Sanctuaries and why it is so important to avoid such 

the myopic focus taken by the current administration on these protected areas? 

Answer. While energy and mineral resources are certainly vital to national economic security, they represent only one piece of a very complex combination of 

human activities and resources that provide for our overall economic security. A 

healthy ocean is essential to a long list of activities that form the basis of human 

health and prosperity. 

Our personal health, jobs, food security, transportation, economic activity, and 

overall quality of life are supported by and continually rejuvenated by the ocean 

This is a ‘‘blue’’ planet; everything we are and have today came from and continues 

to comes from the ocean. We neglect the health of the ocean only to our great peril 

now and in the future. Sanctuaries are one of the absolutely necessary commitments 

to protecting, celebrating, and ensuring the health of the ocean, and consequently 

the foundation of our security now and in the future. 

Question 7. Leveraging National Marine Sanctuaries: In your testimony, you state 

that Nation Marine Sanctuaries ‘‘with increased support can play a major role in 

actually reversing the downward trend [of our oceans and Great Lakes]’’. In what 

ways do we need to increase our support and leverage the full suite of benefits possible from setting aside the areas that compose the National Marine Sanctuary system? 

Answer. The comprehensive management of the national marine sanctuaries 

brings together diverse stakeholders to develop innovative solutions to managing 

our oceans and Great Lakes. The sanctuary research, monitoring, education, and 

outreach programs help communities understand the economic, cultural and ecological importance of their areas and help find options to address issues of concern. 

Sanctuaries bring together the public to engage in managing their unique area now 

and into the future. Increased community support and engagement will bring additional benefits. 

Æ 

107 

This page intentionally left blank.