U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

43-709 PDF 2009

H.R. 6537, SANCTUARY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2008; AND H.R. 6204, 

THUNDER BAY NATIONAL MARINE 

SANCTUARY AND UNDERWATER 

PRESERVE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION ACT. 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE 

AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, July 24, 2008 

Serial No. 110-83 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Steve Scalise, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, July 24, 2008 ............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ............... 1 

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

Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina .......................................................................................... 4 

Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dunnigan, John H., Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce .................................................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Gudes, Scott B., Vice President, Government Relations, National Marine 

Manufacturers Association ........................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Kroll, Steve, Chair, Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council ................... 33 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35 

Marks, Rick, Principal, Hoffman, Silver, Gilman & Blasco .......................... 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

McCotter, Hon. Thaddeus G., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan .......................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement on H.R. 6204 ........................................................... 7 

Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ....................................................................................................... 8 

Spruill, Vikki, President and CEO, Ocean Conservancy ............................... 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 15 

Prepared statement on H.R. 6204 ........................................................... 16 

Sullivan, Timothy J., Executive Director and CEO, The Mariners’ 

Museum ......................................................................................................... 29 

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

Additional materials supplied: 

Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Statement submitted for the record ......................................... 10 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6537, SANCTUARY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2008; AND 

H.R. 6204, THUNDER BAY NATIONAL 

MARINE SANCTUARY AND UNDERWATER 

PRESERVE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION ACT. 

Thursday, July 24, 2008 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:14 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z. 

Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Capps, Saxton and 

Wittman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, 

A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good morning, everyone. The legislative hearing 

by the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans will now 

come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony concerning H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 

2008, and H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairwoman and the 

Ranking Minority Member will make opening statements. This 

morning the Fisheries Subcommittee meets for the purpose of receiving testimony on H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act 

of 2008, and H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. 

During this Congress, this Subcommittee has held two oversight 

hearings to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders regarding reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. It is 

generally agreed that our national marine sanctuaries are fulfilling 

their statutory responsibility and that is to protect nationally significant areas of the marine environment. 

Witnesses also have told us that our sanctuaries are serving collectively as a useful demonstration model for ecosystem-based management. Since Congress last reauthorized the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act in 2000, however, the administration and 

2 

concerned stakeholders have raised specific issues regarding the 

administration of sanctuaries and the Act itself that this Subcommittee continues to consider. 

H.R. 6537 attempts to address many of these issues, and we do 

welcome the comments of the witnesses today and other stakeholders regarding the proposed amendments to the Act. 

First and foremost, in order to emphasize resource protection and 

to provide for consistency in the management of the sanctuaries, 

H.R. 6537 would formally establish a national marine sanctuary 

system to be managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration in accordance with a clear mission statement that 

would be added to the Act. 

Second, H.R. 6537 calls for the inventorying and ecological 

classification by NOAA of the maritime environment and marine 

heritage resources under the jurisdiction of the United States 

based upon guidelines to be developed in consultation with the 

coastal states and territories, the Indian tribes and the regional 

fishery management councils, among others. 

H.R. 6537 would allow for additional sanctuaries to be designated. The bill also would provide more realistic timeframes for 

NOAA to complete management plan reviews and evaluate their effort or their effect to free up more resources to support research, 

management and education activities. 

During the course of its oversight, the Subcommittee was informed by NOAA that none of its statutory authorities under the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act applied to its management responsibilities as co-trustee of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

Marine National Monument. 

To address this situation, H.R. 6537 would amend the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act to ensure that NOAA can fulfill the Agency’s management responsibilities as a co-trustee of the world’s largest marine protected area. Finally, several stakeholders maintain 

that the regulation of the fishing within marine sanctuaries is in 

need of clarification. 

H.R. 6537 would amend the existing Section 304 process to clarify the Secretary of Commerce’s authority to determine the need for 

and to issue fishing regulations for sanctuaries. The Act would continue to utilize the regional fishery management councils as the 

principal entities responsible for drafting fishing regulations and 

provide for greater stakeholder consultation and review of the fishing regulations. 

Regulation of fishing within the boundaries of sanctuaries is recognizably a sensitive issue and clarifying the role of both the Secretary and the regional fishery management councils in drafting 

and approving such regulations should improve the management of 

the resources. 

So keeping in mind that all legislation can be refined and improved, we look forward to hearing the comments and the recommendations of today’s witnesses to ensure that H.R. 6537 serves 

to strengthen the entire sanctuary system and to address the myriad interests of the millions of people who live, work or recreate 

near marine sanctuaries. 

3 

Additionally, I look forward to discussing the proposed boundary 

modifications to the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 

the State of Michigan. 

Now, at this time I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, 

my friend from South Carolina, The Honorable Henry Brown. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

This morning the Fisheries Subcommittee meets for the purpose of receiving testimony on H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008; and H.R. 6204, the 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. 

During this Congress, this Subcommittee has held two oversight hearings to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders regarding reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. It is generally agreed that our national marine sanctuaries are fulfilling their statutory responsibility to protect nationally significant 

areas of the marine environment. Witnesses also have told us that our sanctuaries 

are serving collectively as a useful demonstration model for ecosystem-based management. 

Since Congress last reauthorized the National Marine Sanctuaries Act in 2000, 

however, the Administration and concerned stakeholders have raised specific issues 

regarding the administration of sanctuaries and the Act itself that this Subcommittee continues to consider. H.R. 6537 attempts to address many of these 

issues and we welcome the comments of the witnesses today and other stakeholders 

regarding the proposed amendments to the Act. 

First and foremost, in order to emphasize resource protection and to provide for 

consistency in the management of the sanctuaries, H.R. 6537 would formally establish a National Marine Sanctuary System to be managed by the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration in accordance with a clear mission statement that 

would be added to the Act. 

Second, H.R. 6537 calls for the inventorying and ecological classification by 

NOAA of the maritime environment and marine heritage resources under the jurisdiction of the United States based upon guidelines to be developed in consultation 

with the coastal states and territories, Indian tribes, and the Regional Fishery Management Councils. H.R. 6537 would allow for additional sanctuaries to be designated. The bill also would provide more realistic timeframes for NOAA to complete 

management plan reviews and evaluate their effect to free up more resources to 

support research, management and education activities. 

During the course of its oversight, the Subcommittee was informed by NOAA that 

none of its statutory authorities under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act apply 

to its management responsibilities as co-trustee of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. To address this situation, H.R. 6537 would 

amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to ensure that NOAA can fulfill the 

agency’s management responsibilities as a co-trustee of the world’s largest marine 

protected area. 

Finally, several stakeholders maintain that the regulation of fishing within 

marine sanctuaries is in need of clarification. H.R. 6537 would amend the existing 

Section 304 process to clarify the Secretary of Commerce’s authority to determine 

the need for, and to issue, fishing regulations within sanctuaries. The Act would 

continue to utilize the Regional Fishery Management Councils as the principal entities responsible for drafting fishing regulations, and provide for greater stakeholder 

consultation and review of fishing regulations. Regulation of fishing within the 

boundaries of sanctuaries is recognizably a sensitive issue, and clarifying the role 

of both the Secretary and the Regional Fishery Management Councils in drafting 

and approving such regulations should improve the management of the resources. 

Keeping in mind that all legislation can be refined and improved, we look forward 

to hearing the comments and recommendations of today’s witnesses to ensure that 

H.R. 6537 serves to strengthen the entire Sanctuary System and to address the 

myriad interest of the millions of people who live, work or recreate near marine 

sanctuaries. Additionally, I look forward to discussing the proposed boundary modifications to the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in the State of Michigan. 

4 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the National 

Marine Sanctuary Program has endured widespread support for 

many years. However, through the series of hearings that we have 

held on issues surrounding the reauthorization of the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act, I have heard from a number of witnesses 

that they are concerned with where the program is headed. 

They have mentioned concerns about their activities being prohibited even when the sanctuary was not designated to regulate 

their specific activity, and they have mentioned concerns about the 

ability of individual sanctuary managers to implement regulations 

that restrict their ability to use sanctuary resources. 

These people legitimately fear for their livelihood because they 

feel they can be excluded at any time for little or no reason. While 

I have not had much time to review your legislation, I am afraid 

the bill will do nothing to ease their concerns. In fact, I think it 

will do the opposite. Individual sanctuaries get designated for specific reasons that for the most part are unique to that sanctuary. 

The destination documents for each sanctuary lay out the reasons for the designations and they are supposed to make it clear 

what activities are OK and which are not OK. If sanctuary managers continue designation documents for no good reason or it looks 

like Congress is likely to outlaw activities for all sanctuaries, people will feel about the sanctuary program the way they feel about 

the rest of Federal government: fear and distrust. 

When we designate a sanctuary, we make it pledge with the 

users of that area. If circumstances change and restrictions need 

to be put in place, the stakeholders need to be a part of the discussion. They should not be regulated without cause or without explanation. 

In addition, people are similarly concerned that the precedent set 

by the designation of the Northwest Hawaiian Island National 

Marine Monument will allow activities to be banned with no public 

comment or review. This certainly concerns by constituents when 

they hear that there is a potential for a monument designation off 

the coast of South Carolina. 

Madam Chairwoman, as I stated at the last hearing, on this 

issue we have a strong tradition of recreational and commercial 

fishing in South Carolina. In fact, we have very strong ties to the 

water, both inland waters and the open ocean. Any proposal from 

the Federal government to come in and override the state’s ability 

to allow fishing or other activities all for sure will not be welcome. 

Any proposal from the Federal government to tell South Carolina 

that we cannot develop our natural gas resources off of our coast 

would not be welcome. In fact, any proposal that would tell us what 

we can or cannot do without any public input would, and should, 

be opposed and rejected. I still hear that a number of proposals are 

working their way through this administration to declare areas off 

limit to certain activities by Presidential decree, including off South 

Carolina. 

Doing this type of resource lock up without any public comment 

is wrong. Any attempt to create a sanctuary or a monument off 

5 

South Carolina that would lock up our fishery resources and our 

energy resources is bad policy and a bad idea. 

Finally, Madam Chair, at least two of our witnesses start their 

testimony with statements that they were not given enough time 

to either fully review the reauthorization bill or did not have 

enough time to get input from representatives of their industry sector. That is unfortunate. Even though this hearing was scheduled 

in plenty of time, the legislation was not available until last week 

giving witnesses less than one week to prepare for the hearing and 

get their comments reviewed. 

For that reason and because this legislation makes a significant 

change to the sanctuary program by adding authorities for the national marine monuments, something which we have had very little 

discussion on in the previous hearings, I would like for you to make 

a commitment that this Subcommittee will not move this legislature prior to us holding at least one more hearing to discuss the 

issue surrounding the designation of national marine monuments 

and how such monuments would be treated once they are designated. 

I hope such a commitment can be made, and I would like to work 

with you to make sure this legislation is something that I can support and that will not cause more fear among those who make their 

living on the waters of the United States. 

Thanks, Madam Chairman. You have the balance of the time, 

and I welcome my colleagues as witnesses. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the Ranking Member from South Carolina, the gentleman, Congressman Mr. Brown. Now, I would like to 

recognize the gentlelady from California, Lois Capps, for opening 

remarks. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this 

hearing, and welcome to our first panel, our expert witnesses who 

are our colleagues, Mr. McCotter from Michigan, and particularly 

want to welcome colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. She and 

I are co-chairs of the newly created sanctuary caucus, and it is a 

pleasure to work with her on behalf of some of the issues that our 

colleague, Mr. Brown, just mentioned inclusivity. 

Madam Chairwoman, one of the reasons I joined this Subcommittee was to reauthorize and be part of this process to reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. This is the third 

hearing we have had on this important law in the 110th Congress. 

As you recall because you were there, one of our hearings was held 

on the site overlooking the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary, 

which I am honored to represent, out in California. 

The hearings have given the Subcommittee an opportunity to determine if the Act has kept pace with advances in ocean management and science. Today we begin the next phase of this process. 

I want to congratulate you for introducing the Sanctuary Enhancement Act. This is a good bill. 

It makes several targeted and critical changes to the Act, it lists 

the current moratorium on the designation of new sanctuaries, it 

establishes a process for potential new sites to be added to the sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:34 Feb 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43709.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
6 

tem and it improves the process for updating sanctuary management plans. 

I am confident that these changes will enhance and ensure the 

continued success of the sanctuary system for years to come. Once 

again, Madam Chair, you have assembled a diverse group of stakeholders to address the Subcommittee this morning. I am interested 

in what they think of some of the provisions included in the Sanctuary Enhancement Act, hopeful that with their suggestions we can 

work toward a successful reauthorization. 

I am ready to do my part to develop these ideas as the reauthorization process moves forward. Once again, thank you for introducing the bill and for convening this hearing. I yield back. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentlelady from California, Lois 

Capps, for her opening remarks. Although he is not making any 

opening remarks, I would like to introduce the gentleman from 

New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, who was a former Chairman of this Subcommittee. I recognize the Ranking Member. 

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chair, I would like unanimous consent to 

place in the records the statement from our Ranking Member of 

the full Committee, Honorable Don Young. 

Ms. BORDALLO. No objection. So ordered. Now, I would like to 

recognize our first panel, two very distinguished colleagues of mine, 

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter from Michigan and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida. I want to thank you both 

for being here this morning. I know it is a very busy time for us, 

particularly on a Thursday. 

So at this time before recognizes Congressman McCotter to testify I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from Congressman Bart Stupak, the sponsor of H.R. 6204, in 

support of his legislation. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. McCotter, you are now invited to testify on 

H.R. 6204, which would expand the Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THADDEUS McCOTTER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MICHIGAN 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am delighted to be 

here, I am delighted to testify on behalf of this bill by my colleague 

from Michigan, Bart Stupak. I think the idea of my coming in 

today was hatched while we were standing at first base at the congressional baseball game and he said what are you doing? 

I said well, I am planning on stealing off of Joe Baca, and he said 

well, what are you doing after that? I said well, I think I can come 

testify if you are busy, Bart. He said well, I will be busy, will you 

go testify? I said who is the Chair of that Subcommittee? He said 

Madeleine Bordallo. I said I would be delighted to attend. I did not 

know that the good gentleman from New Jersey was here. I might 

have reconsidered. 

I would like, with your permission, to enter a statement into the 

record. I would just like to add to that my personal belief that the 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve 

has been a tremendous asset to Michigan, both for its archeological 

research as well its tourism to our state. 

7 

It has been a very bipartisan issue and the leadership of people 

like my colleague, Bart Stupak, and Senator Levin across the rotunda, is of critical importance to our state as it struggles. I know 

there are larger concerns that are with this issue but in the spirit 

of the times I remember what Tip O’Neill said: All politics is local. 

I am a citizen of Michigan and this bill will have a tremendous 

impact for our residents, and I would urge that it be passed out 

of Committee. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Congressman McCotter, 

for your testimony. I would like to mention a little on the side here 

that I first had the opportunity to meet the distinguished gentleman on a trip to the Middle East. We did a series of concerts, 

I think six altogether. I did not know he was a very accomplished 

musician. 

I was part of the group, it is called the Second Amendments, 

made up of all the Members of Congress. Mr. McCotter there plays 

a very mean guitar. So it is good to see you again, and thank you 

very much for testifying this morning. Don’t ask me what I played 

in that. I am just a tambourine player. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCotter follows:] 

Statement of Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Michigan 

Good Morning Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for granting me this time to speak on the Thunder 

Bay National Marine Sanctuary. I am pleased to submit this statement in support 

of H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act, of which I am an original co-sponsor. 

As you know, in 2000, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary was established as the thirteenth national marine sanctuary and the only marine sanctuary 

in our Great Lakes. Preceded by thirty years of tireless dedication, the 448 square 

miles of protected waters of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary encompasses many natural and cultural treasures to our Great Lakes and the nation. Certainly, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) itself recognized Thunder Bay’s unique significance in designating this sanctuary under its 

mandate is to select sites which are shown to contain resources of ‘‘special national 

significance’’ due to their ‘‘conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, 

educational, or aesthetic qualities.’’ 

Specifically, Thunder Bay’s cold, freshwater environment has preserved and protected many historic shipwrecks, unseen in wrecks found in saltwater environments. 

Today, more than 200 known shipwrecks and 65 possible shipwrecks can be found 

within the boundaries of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Within this 

impressive array of shipwrecks lies a rich history detailing the early settlement of 

our Great Lakes. While the upper Great Lakes region was sparsely populated 

throughout much of the 17th and 18th centuries, in the early 19th and 20th centuries, most of the early immigrants to the region came by boat due to lack of interior infrastructure development. Evidence of the development in Great Lakes shipping technology can be clearly seen in Thunder Bay’s impressive inventory to sunken ships. These sunken vessels range from wooden sailboats to early steel-hulled 

steamboats, including a few sidewheel steamboats. One of the more well known 

shipwrecks in Thunder Bay was the wooden sidewheel steamer, NEW ORLEANS, 

which was sunk during a storm in 1849. Another famous wreck was the GRECIAN 

in 1906, which was one of the first steam powered ‘‘lakers’’ to sail our Great Lakes. 

Ultimately, the GRECIAN’s design was replaced by straight-decked lakers, typified 

by the ISAAC M. SCOTT, which also sank in Thunder Bay during the Great Storm 

of 1913. 

Indeed, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) used to study the designation 

of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary concludes the importance of Thunder Bay as a microcosm of the larger Great Lakes shipping system. To highlight one 

such conclusion from the EIS, ‘‘Virtually all types of vessels employed on the open 

lakes regularly passed along this important trade route, and most vessel types are 

represented in its shipwreck collection. These vessels were engaged at the time of 

8 

their loss, or sometime during their careers, in nearly every kind of trade. Most of 

these trades had a national—and some had an international—significance and 

spawned uniquely designed vessels. Thunder Bay, therefore, impacted the design 

and construction of traditional Great Lakes craft.’’ (EIS, 123) 

After its designation as a National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA, in cooperation with 

the City of Alpena and Alpena County, Michigan, established the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center. Importantly, the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center 

serves approximately 60,000 visitors every year as the gateway to Thunder Bay. The 

Center allows visitors to explore shipwrecks in real time; investigate archaeologist’s 

preservation of these historic shipwrecks; and discover our Great Lakes’ maritime 

history through interactive exhibits. In 2005, I had the pleasure of attending the 

5th Anniversary of the designation of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. In 

June 2008, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary opened a new Great Lakes 

Maritime Heritage Center. Now more than ever, visitors can experience the wonders 

of Thunder Bay through all new interactive exhibits, including a replica shipwrecked vessel. While I have not had the opportunity to visit the new facility, I look 

forward to one day sharing this experience with my children. 

Importantly, to continue the preservation efforts already underway, I am proud 

to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. Specifically, H.R. 6204 

would expand the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary to include the offshore 

waters of Presque Isle and Alcona Counties, Michigan. Significantly, these areas are 

home to a comparable number to lost vessels which archeologists and students alike 

can study and explore. Today, these shipwrecks are popular with many recreational 

divers and are integral parts of our Great Lakes’ maritime heritage. Without proper 

preservation, these historic sites could be lost. Additionally, this expansion is welcomed by these surrounding communities in recognition of the good work NOAA and 

the Thunder Bay staff is already doing in Alpena. 

In conclusion, let me again thank Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, 

and members of the Subcommittee for extending me the privilege to speak about 

the benefits of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and H.R. 6204. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I would like to now introduce and recognize a CoChair of the House National Marine Sanctuary Caucus, and she is 

our colleague from Florida and the co-sponsor of my bill, and Congressman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I have a hard time sometimes with 

that name. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. What about your name, Madam Chair? 

Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much for your continuing support for the sanctuary system, and so please begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

FLORIDA 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you, ranking Member Brown, and fellow National Marine Sanctuary Caucus 

Co-Chair and Co-Founder, my good friend from California, Lois 

Capps. We have a new member of our caucus. I had to assure Congressman McCotter that it is a marine sanctuary caucus and not 

sanctuary cities caucus, so he is quite relieved about that. 

I made quite a mess of your table here, Madam Chair. I poured 

an entire cup of water before realizing that it was all spilling into 

your beautiful table and onto me. I do not have a drinking problem. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, since this is the Oceans Committee, I think 

it is very appropriate. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Right. That is what Mr. McCotter was saying. I am developing my own marine sanctuary right here. Thank 

you so much for the opportunity. I would like to recognize in the 

audience Don Basta, who is a good friend, a good friend of Lois, a 

9 

good friend of mine as well. He is the head of the sanctuary program, so take a bow there, Don. Thank you. 

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak before you in support of H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008, introduced by the Chair. I am the original co-sponsor, as well as the 

lead Republican sponsor on the bill. I believe that we are at a critical period in which all Americans should unite to protect our ocean 

and coastal resources and the reauthorization of the Sanctuaries 

Act is an important step toward that goal. 

The legislation before this Committee reaffirms the significance 

of our marine resources by strengthening Federal authority to conserve pristine areas, increasing interagency collaboration and participation between the appropriate stakeholders, and most importantly, expand educational opportunities for our young people. 

I have the great honor of representing a good chunk of paradise 

in this beautiful country. My district consists of 265 miles of Florida coastline from the tip of Miami Beach all the way down to Key 

West. The Florida Keys, in particular, is one of the most ecologically diverse areas in the nation. I think that applies to humans 

as well. It is pretty diverse. 

The Keys are home to two national parks, four national wildlife 

refuges and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and 

there are currently 13 national marine sanctuaries and one marine 

national monument established in areas where the natural or cultural resources are so significant that they warrant special status 

and protection. 

Our sanctuary, established by Congress in 1990, includes the 

most extensive coral reef system in the continental United States 

and the third largest in the world. 

National marine sanctuaries provide economic, environmental 

and educational benefits to surrounding communities and visiting 

populations, and these benefits are fully realized in my home district where the national marine sanctuary is a prime hub for tourism, it is a critical source of revenue for local industries, and it has 

an underwater lab for children and adults. 

Each year, nearly two million tourists visit the Florida Keys, including so many ocean enthusiasts, scuba divers—and I am a scuba 

diver myself—and the attractions of our sanctuary system contribute greatly to the total value of Florida’s tourist economies and 

fisheries. 

Commercial and recreational fisherman, as Mr. Brown had pointed out, operating within sanctuary waters, they contribute millions 

of dollars to Florida’s economy annually. In fact, our sanctuary is 

a model for collaboration and cooperation between the scientific 

and commercial fishing industries throughout the United States. 

Provisions included in today’s bill seek to strengthen the interaction between industry stakeholders and conservationists. 

I know that numerous commercial fishermen, including those in 

my congressional district, are concerned about the role of their industry in future sanctuary designations and potential area closures, but I look forward to working with members of this Subcommittee and the full Committee in ensuring that the final bill 

does, indeed, maintain the role of regional fisheries council and 

10 

also invites individual fishermen in decisionmaking that affects 

their livelihood. 

I am a former teacher so I believe that life and learning are very 

much connected, and sanctuary systems provide countless educational opportunities for students of all ages. I look forward to 

working with this Subcommittee and with the full Committee on 

strengthening our sanctuaries program while protecting the commercial fishing industry. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, Mr. Saxton and Ms. Capps. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I want to thank you very much for your excellent 

remarks, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and thank you, also, for your support 

for a vibrant and effective national marine sanctuary system. I 

know you are from the great State of Florida so you are surrounded 

by water, just as we are, and I do want to go on record to thank 

you for some of the past support that you have given the territory 

of Guam. 

We still have a bill lingering in the Senate and you have been 

very, very helpful. I want to thank you very much for your die hard 

support of that piece of legislation. Also to Mr. McCotter. I know 

you are both very busy people. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Is there anybody that wishes to ask any questions of—— 

[No response.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. I want to thank you both then. I would 

like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement 

in support of H.R. 6537 on behalf of Congressman Sam Farr. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Farr follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Sam Farr, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 

Having been born and raised on the Central Coast of California, I have long admired the bounty and the beauty produced from the rich ecosystems of our oceans. 

I thank Chairwoman Bordallo for holding this hearing on the reauthorization, 

strengthening, and clarification of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. I believe 

that the National Marine Sanctuaries are a vital tool for the conservation of our 

oceans and important models for ecosystem based management. This legislation will 

make it clear that the primary purpose of the sanctuaries is the long-term protection and conservation of the living and nonliving resources. 

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), which I am proud to 

have in my district, contains our nation’s largest kelp forest, one of North America’s 

largest underwater canyons, and the nearest-to-shore deep ocean environment in 

the continental United States. The sanctuary is home to one of the most diverse 

marine ecosystems in the world, including 33 species of marine mammals, 94 species of seabirds, 345 species of fishes, and numerous invertebrates and plants. These 

features make it ideally situated for learning about and engaging the public with 

the marine environment and I believe its establishment has contributed to the 

health of our coastal economy. 

Having been a long-time supporter of the sanctuary, and lifetime resident on its 

shores, I have witnessed the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary’s commitment to building a strong foundation for continued success by actively engaging 

local residents in what is possibly the most involved citizen advisory group in the 

system. I believe it is this commitment that has maintained the broad base of support that continues to be the sanctuary’s greatest asset. 

The management of the National Marine Sanctuaries requires that we take the 

long view and ensure that we continue to have productive, healthy oceans. The protections for the ocean ecosystems that the Sanctuaries provide do not endanger the 

commercial and recreational fishing industries, but will guarantee the continued existence of these businesses and these ways of life for future generations of fishermen. 

11 

The sanctuaries are an important part of the protections of the ocean that the 

people in my district have come to expect. They represent a promise that we will 

maintain the ecosystems that are the cornerstone of commercial fishing, recreational 

fishing and boating, and tourism on the coast. Recreational uses of the ocean alone 

account for more than $100 billion of the coastal economies, with wildlife viewing 

alone generating up to $50 billion. These sanctuaries will ensure that there remains 

something for our grandchildren to come see. 

The sanctuaries protect fragile benthic habitats from destructive drilling for oil. 

They also restrict ship traffic in order to protect these ocean waters from future oil 

spills and to avoid repeating the disastrous consequences from oil spills in the past. 

During the Cosco Busan oil spill the staff and the impressively knowledgeable volunteers of the Sanctuaries on the California coast aided the oil spill response teams 

in monitoring and cleanup along the coast. I do not want to imagine the outcome 

without these dedicated and caring people. The sanctuaries guarantee that we will 

not sacrifice these amazing and productive living resources for short term economic 

gain. 

Finally we must not underestimate the scientific benefit of having places from 

which we can learn about the complex systems of the ocean on which our climate, 

our weather, much of our economy, and our food supply depends. The importance 

of our oceans will only increase in the coming decades as the communities along the 

coasts and inland are forced to adapt to changes in our climate. 

I am pleased that we are starting the process of strengthening and clarifying the 

best marine conservation program that we currently have. I believe we need to include and educate all people who have a stake in healthy, pristine, and productive 

oceans in this process. I look forward to working on this and protecting 

Ms. BORDALLO.The Chairwoman now recognizes the second panel 

of witnesses, Mr. John Dunnigan, the Assistant Administrator for 

Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 

Ms. Vikki Spruill, President and CEO of the Ocean Conservancy; 

Mr. Scott B. Gudes, Vice President, Government Relations, National Marine Manufacturers Association; Mr. Timothy Sullivan, 

Executive Director and CEO, The Mariners’ Museum; Mr. Steve 

Kroll, Chairman, Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, Diving Representative; and Mr. Rick Marks, Principal, Hoffman, Silver, Gilman & Blasco. 

I now recognize Mr. Dunnigan to testify for five minutes, and I 

would note for all the witnesses that the red timing light on the 

table will indicate when your time has concluded and we would appreciate your cooperation in complying with the limits that have 

been set as we have several witnesses to hear from today. Be assured that your full written statement will be submitted for the 

hearing record. 

Now, if you would, Mr. Dunnigan, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN H. DUNNIGAN, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OCEAN SERVICES AND 

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Members of 

the Committee, good morning. Let me say how much I appreciate 

the opportunity to be back here today on behalf of NOAA and the 

administration in support of one of the strongest programs that we 

have in Oceans and Marine Affairs for the conservation and protection of valuable resources. 

Since you have indicated, Madam Chairwoman, that the statements will be entered in full in the record, let me just make a few 

comments. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act really is one of 

the strongest pieces of Federal legislation for protecting both natVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:34 Feb 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43709.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
12 

ural, as well as cultural, resources for the oceans and the great 

lakes, and yes and no, we recognize that the great lakes are oceans, 

too. 

The Sanctuaries Act is unique among a suite of Federal laws 

aimed at protecting marine resources because its primary objective 

is to identify marine areas of special national significance for their 

protection and conservation and for managing these special places 

as ecosystems so that we can maintain their natural biodiversity 

as well as the historical and cultural heritage that is associated 

with these wonderful places. 

NOAA fully supports the reauthorization of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act, and so we very much appreciate the opportunity 

to once again reiterate our views for the priorities for that reauthorization. Madam Chairwoman, we have not had sufficient time 

to completely review the provisions of H.R. 6537, and so I can’t 

give you specific comments today on behalf of the administration. 

We do, however, look forward to continuing our work with the 

Committee and the Committee staff. We have been doing that over 

the last couple of months providing technical assistance. As we go 

through the bill, we look forward to working with you some more. 

If I could, let me just mention a couple of issues that we have testified before this Committee before about that we think are some 

high priority themes that need to be carried forward. 

First, although the Sanctuary Act’s primary purpose is resource 

protection, we think that the Sanctuary Act has lacked an overarching sense of mission since the law was first passed in 1972, 

and so in clarifying the primary purpose of this bill, the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act could be modified to include a standalone 

purpose and policy that very clearly states what it is that the Congress is trying to achieve through this legislation rather than the 

way the bill is written today where you have to go through the law 

in a number of different places and try to tease out what are the 

important and salient policy prerogatives that are contained in it. 

So establishing a clear primary mission and focus for the law is 

something that we think needs to be done. Second, we think that 

there are some improvements that can be made in the processes 

contained in the law, particularly the sanctuary identification and 

designation process. For some time there has been a moratorium 

on the consideration of new sanctuaries. 

As I said to you a couple of weeks ago when we were here at the 

last hearing, we think it is time to allow that moratorium to be lifted, not necessarily so that we would move forward and identify or 

designate a whole swath of new sanctuaries, but really to create a 

better opportunity for us to evaluate, and plan, and look at the system as a whole so that we can make better judgments as to how 

it ought to be operating. 

We also believe very strongly in NOAA in public process, and I 

recognize a number of comments that had been made so far in this 

hearing this morning. We have a longstanding commitment to 

transparency and to working with the public. Our sanctuary advisory councils are critical to the success of the process that we have 

today. We think that whatever processes are carried forward need 

to recognize the importance of the public’s engagement in making 

these decisions. 

13 

The last point that I would like to mention is this question of 

marine national monuments. This was brought to us new when the 

President designated the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument. We are looking for an opportunity to try to make the 

requirements of monuments under the Antiquities Act work with 

the resources that we have under the Sanctuaries Act. 

We think that would be a good thing to include in the reauthorization of the law. Let me make one last comment, if I could, about 

Thunder Bay. NOAA agrees with the underlying purpose of 

H.R. 6204 to provide Federal protection to the shipwrecks and 

other maritime heritage resources located off of Michigan’s Presque 

Isle and Alcona Counties by incorporating them into the Thunder 

Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 

There is a lot of public support for this. We recognize it. We have 

had a lot of opportunity to work with the public. Our general view 

is that these are better done through the sanctuary process rather 

than by statute, but, in fact, this is a wonderful part of the national marine sanctuary system, and we look forward to being able 

to continue to work with the Committee. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Dunnigan, and we look forward 

to working with NOAA to refine and improve this legislation to 

strengthen the mission and the capabilities of the national marine 

sanctuary system. I want to go on record to congratulate you. You 

are able to pronounce that monument in Hawaii. 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. It is a requirement of the job, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunnigan follows:] 

Statement of John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce 

INTRODUCTION 

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee. I am John H. 

Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008 

and H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. 

Thirty-six years ago, Congress passed the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532). Title III of that law, later named the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (the NMSA), authorized the Secretary of Commerce to designate areas of the marine environment, including the Great Lakes, as national 

marine sanctuaries. 

The NMSA is one of the strongest pieces of federal legislation for protecting both 

natural and cultural resources in the oceans and Great Lakes. The NMSA is unique 

among the suite of federal laws aimed at protecting or managing marine resources 

in that its primary objective is to set aside marine areas of special national significance for their permanent protection and to manage them as ecosystems to maintain 

their natural biodiversity and historical and cultural heritage. 

NOAA fully supports reauthorization of the NMSA and appreciates the opportunity to once again reiterate our priorities for reauthorization. Although we have 

not had sufficient time to review H.R. 6537 and cannot provide specific comments 

on it today, we look forward to working with the Committee in the future once we’ve 

conducted a more thorough analysis. My testimony today will therefore focus more 

generally on NOAA’s priorities for reauthorization and on H.R. 6204. 

PRIORITIES for NMSA reauthorization 

The NMSA is one of the nation’s most successful marine resource conservation 

laws and its reauthorization should be a top priority of Congress as it considers enVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:34 Feb 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43709.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
14 

vironmental legislation. There are, however, several issues that the Administration 

considers ripe for change within the Act. 

NOAA’s top three priorities for NMSA reauthorization are to: 

• Clarify and strengthen that the NMSA’s primary mission is resource protection. 

• Streamline and clarify the processes of: (1) identifying and evaluating sites for 

possible designation as national marine sanctuaries; (2) selecting eligible sites 

to begin the designation process; and (3) designating sites as national marine 

sanctuaries. 

• Provide those portions of marine national monuments managed by NOAA with 

legal management tools that are currently available to national marine sanctuaries. 

The NMSA’s Primary Purpose and Mission Focus 

Although the NMSA’s primary purpose is resource protection, the NMSA has 

lacked an overarching mission statement since its passage in 1972. In implementing 

the NMSA, NOAA must piece together current priorities and management goals 

through references found scattered throughout the NMSA. This has, on occasion, led 

to confusion as to the NMSA’s primary mission focus. In clarifying its primary purpose, the NMSA could be modified to include a stand-alone purpose and policy on 

resource protection and a clear concise mission statement for NOAA in implementing that policy. 

Sanctuary Identification and Designation 

There has been considerable confusion about the processes for evaluating sites for 

eligibility and designating them as national marine sanctuaries. This confusion has 

been a significant impediment to NOAA making timely decisions about designating 

sites and in conducting management plan reviews for existing national marine sanctuaries. Reauthorization discussions of the NMSA could include consideration of 

new language to streamline and clarify these processes with the goal of allowing 

NOAA to make more timely and predictable decisions. 

Any changes to the existing processes, however, must be made in a way that first 

and foremost preserves the NMSA’s longstanding commitment to transparent public 

process. Any changes must also maintain the NMSA’s important procedural safeguards, such as interagency and intergovernmental consultation requirements. 

Marine National Monuments 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433) gives the President authority to 

protect natural and cultural objects through designation of a national monument. 

Although this authority has been largely used to protect terrestrial resources, it has 

been used to protect special areas of the marine environment as well, including the 

Papah’naumoku’kea Marine National Monument (PMNM), which is the first monument NOAA has responsibility to manage. NOAA is a co-manager of the PMNM, 

along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Hawaii. While this 

statute provides a basis for strong protection, the NMSA provides NOAA a number 

of well-tested and highly valuable administrative management tools to effectively 

manage and protect national marine sanctuaries that are not available under the 

Antiquities Act. In particular, the NMSA provides for the recovery of damages from 

parties responsible for injuring sanctuary resources (section 312); it allows for a 

community-based advisory council to provide input in sanctuary management (section 315); and it allows for NOAA to pursue civil penalties for violations of the 

NMSA and regulations or permits issued under the NMSA (section 307). These authorities would be useful in marine national monuments, or portions thereof, that 

are managed by NOAA. 

Technical Enhancements to Key Elements of the NMSA 

Several key elements of the NMSA lay the basic foundation for management of 

the National Marine Sanctuary System and provide essential statutory authority to 

ensure its overarching goals and objectives are efficiently met. These include the 

ability to conduct enforcement (section 307), the authority to issue regulations (section 308), the mandate to conduct scientific research and educational programs (section 309), the flexibility to issue special use permits (section 310), the authority to 

enter into cooperative agreements (section 311), the authority to collect damages 

from parties responsible for injuring sanctuary resources (section 312), the authority 

to establish and convene advisory councils (section 315), and the authority to solicit 

sponsors and accept other forms of support (section 316). Reauthorization discussions could include careful evaluation of these foundational pieces of the NMSA and 

update them as necessary to ensure they continue to meet NOAA’s needs. For example, some considerations could include: 

15 

• increasing the maximum civil administrative penalty per day per offense, to 

provide a greater deterrent; • providing better clarity on the issuance and enforcement of permits (e.g., clarify 

that NOAA has the authority to revoke permits it issues under the authority 

of NMS regulations); • making the management of advisory councils more efficient by eliminating the 

15-member limit on advisory councils for sanctuaries designated after November 4, 1992; and • allowing NOAA to withhold data and information that, if released, could result 

in injury to sanctuary resources. 

THUNDER BAY EXPANSION 

NOAA agrees with the underlying purpose of H.R. 6204, which is to provide federal protection to the shipwrecks, and other maritime heritage resources, located off 

Michigan’s Presque Isle and Alcona Counties by incorporating them into the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve (Sanctuary). This 

proposal also has widespread support in the local communities. On May 22, 2007, 

the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) recommended expanding the 

Sanctuary to a 3,662-square-mile area extending from Alcona County to Presque 

Isle County, east to the international border with Canada. Formal support for sanctuary expansion has been received from the City of Alpena, Alpena County, Alpena 

Township, Sanborn Township, Presque Isle Township, the City of Rogers City, 

Alcona County, Michigan Sunrise Side Travel Association, and the Sunrise Side 

Coastal Highway Management Council. While there is public support for such an 

expansion, as a general matter NOAA prefers to see that significant actions such 

as these be vetted through public management plan and regulatory development 

processes rather than legislatively, as H.R. 6204 would do. 

The Sanctuary was designated in October 2000 for the purposes of providing longterm protection and management to the conservation, recreational, research, educational, and historical resources and qualities of a nationally significant collection 

of shipwrecks and other maritime heritage resources in the area. The bill would increase the size of the Sanctuary by approximately eight times its current size of 448 

square miles. The Sanctuary’s shoreline would also increase from 95 to 225 miles 

and subsequently include the cities of Alpena, Harrisville and Rogers City. Under 

this proposal an additional five state park properties, seven historic lighthouses and 

one lifesaving station would also be adjacent to the expanded boundaries. 

More than 200 shipwrecks rest within the proposed boundaries. Magnificently 

preserved by the cold freshwater of Lake Huron, these archeological sites are one 

of the nation’s best-preserved and historically-significant collections of shipwrecks. 

From pioneer steamers to majestic schooners to modern freighters, these sites represent a microcosm of maritime commerce on the Great Lakes. As memorials to the 

men and women that worked the inland seas, these unique sites have tremendous 

historical, archaeological, and recreational value. They not only connect us to the 

past, but they also connect us to the Great Lakes—one of our most precious natural 

resources. 

CONCLUSION 

In closing, I’d like to reiterate NOAA’s support for NMSA reauthorization and our 

sincere gratitude for the hard work this Subcommittee has done toward that goal. 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee once we’ve conducted a more 

thorough analysis of the bill. I also would like to reiterate NOAA’s support for the 

underlying purpose of H.R. 6204. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to offer my thoughts on these important 

issues. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

Ms. BORDALLO. At this time we are going to interrupt for just a 

few minutes. Congressman Stupak has come in and he is the sponsor of 6204, so the Committee would like to have him give his opening remarks and statement on that bill. Congressman, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BART STUPAK, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MICHIGAN 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank 

you for the courtesy. I was helping Oversight Investigations do a 

16 

hearing. But this is H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. It 

is of great concern to us and enjoys full support throughout my district. 

What started off as a marine sanctuary, the first one on the 

Great Lakes, somewhat controversial a number of years ago, very 

few elected officials would support it, but now we enjoy widespread 

support from all the counties affected. It has had a tremendous impact on our community and tourism. 

It has opened the eyes of so many people as to I should say the 

depths of the Great Lakes, all the shipwrecks we have had, how 

the deep, cold waters in the bottom of those lakes have preserved 

those shipwrecks for so many years, and we look forward to expanding the marine sanctuary. It has been a great asset with great 

pride. 

The State of Michigan and the local communities have expanded 

the heritage center that now connects underwater cameras to some 

of the shipwrecks. We just had a grand opening of the new center 

about two, three weeks ago. A tremendous turnout, tremendous 

support. So we are asking for this Committee if you would approve 

the boundary modification. Make it larger to include about another 

117 more shipwrecks in this part of Lake Huron. 

We certainly appreciate the help and support of this Subcommittee and the full Committee, and we look forward to continuing to expand the enjoyment, the excitement, the discovery 

process, the eyes that we open up for people around the Great 

Lakes as to our great maritime history in the Great Lakes. Thank 

you for your help and support, Madam Chair, and to all the members. 

Thank you for taking me out of order and the courtesy shown 

here today. I will go back up on my hearing on long-term care. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Michigan 

Thank you Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the 

Subcommittee for holding this hearing on H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National 

Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. 

I also want to thank the bill’s original co-sponsors Congressman Kildee and Congressman McCotter, who’s efforts have been instrumental in bringing my bill to the 

Committee. 

In 1975, Michigan State University in response to local interest collected an inventory of shipwrecks located within Lake Huron’s Thunder Bay. What they found 

was that Thunder Bay potentially contained the largest number of historical shipwrecks in the country. 

This discovery warranted the establishment of an underwater ‘‘reserve’’ and in 

1981 the state of Michigan declared Thunder Bay as Michigan’s first Great Lakes 

Bottomland Preserve. 

Following this state recognition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration designated the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 2000 making it 

the first sanctuary in the Great Lakes. 

The Sanctuary is a federal-state partnership with a unique focus on preserving 

the large collection of underwater cultural resources. These resources consist of over 

100 shipwrecks spanning over 200 years of Great Lakes shipping history. 

In order to study and preserve the cultural resources present at Thunder Bay, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the State of Michigan established the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center in Alpena, Michigan in 2005. 

17 

The Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center allows visitors to learn about Great 

Lakes’ maritime history, explore shipwrecks via live video feeds, and see how archaeologists continue to work to preserve these historic sites. 

To continue this positive outcome, the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council, 

a fifteen-member group representing local interests such as fishermen, the business 

community, educational institutions, and local government, have passed a resolution 

that recommended the sanctuary be expanded. 

My legislation, H.R. 6204, would extend the sanctuary’s boundaries to include the 

waters off Alcona, Alpena and Presque Isle counties in Michigan and extend the 

sanctuary east to the international boundary with Canada. 

Currently, the sanctuary covers 448 square miles of water and 115 miles of shoreline, protecting 116 shipwrecks. H.R. 6204 would increase this area to 3,722 square 

miles of water and 226 miles of shoreline, adding an additional 180 shipwrecks to 

the Sanctuary. 

In addition, the legislation would direct NOAA to produce updated charts of the 

newly designated areas and apply the protection and preservation provisions in the 

existing management plan to the newly added areas. 

By authorizing an expansion to the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the 

affected local communities would receive the benefits of having additional historical 

resources highlighted and preserved, as well as increased tourism, which is an important driver for economic growth. 

The Senate companion bill, S. 2281, introduced by Senator Carl Levin, was approved by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on May 15, 

2008. 

It is my hope that this Committee will also support this legislation, so we may 

make this expansion a reality. I thank you again for allowing me to testify, and for 

your consideration of my legislation. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, who is the author of H.R. 6204. I understand he represents 

one of the largest districts in his state. I would like to recognize 

the Ranking Member who has a question. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Bart. Thanks for being here today. I was 

just looking at the map, you know, showing where the current 

sanctuary is and where you want to expand it to. I would assume 

that the boundary out there would be the boundary that your protected waters in Michigan versus the protected waters in Canada. 

Is that the dividing line? 

Mr. STUPAK. No. The dividing line is out a little bit farther. It 

is an international border there so it is quite a ways out there. 

Mr. BROWN. OK. 

Mr. STUPAK. We were still fairly close to the shoreline because 

of the reefs that are found in that area. That is where all those 

shipwrecks lie, and all lie within the State of Michigan. The international border is still farther out in the water. 

Mr. BROWN. I got you. 

Mr. STUPAK. I have over 1,600 miles of freshwater shoreline. I 

have more shoreline than any other congressional district except 

Alaska. So it is a pretty big district and Canada is very supportive 

of it. Right across from us is the Manitou Islands where they have 

a number of passages and shipwrecks that Canada is developing. 

Mr. BROWN. OK. Thanks. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Again, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 

his statements today and they will be entered into the record. 

Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Now, we will continue on. I would like to introduce Ms. Spruill. Welcome before the Subcommittee and you are 

now recognized to testify for five minutes. 

18 

STATEMENT OF VIKKI SPRUILL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

THE OCEAN CONSERVANCY 

Ms. SPRUILL. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members 

of the Subcommittee. I am Vikki Spruill, President and CEO at 

Ocean Conservancy. I would like to thank Chairwoman Bordallo for 

her leadership on the issue of ocean conversation and for moving 

this critical reauthorization forward. 

As is probably true for many of us here, the ocean has been a 

constant throughout my life. I was fortunate to grow up along the 

panhandle of Florida with its sugar sand beaches and emerald waters that attract countless tourists every year. I went to college in 

New Orleans not far from the Gulf of Mexico where oil rigs and refineries mark the coastal waters. 

Ocean conservancy is the country’s oldest and largest ocean nonprofit. We harness over 35 years of policy and scientific expertise 

to anticipate ecological threats and to deliver sustainable solutions 

to protect our ocean and improve our quality of life. I am honored 

to represent a half a million members and volunteers from across 

the country. 

We believe it is time to look beneath the surface of the ocean to 

see where the health of our planet really begins. The ocean is 

Earth’s life support system. 

It covers two-thirds of the planet, provides much of the air we 

breathe, the food we need, and it actually moderates the climate 

that sustains us, yet many still take it for granted, so it falls to 

us to be stewards of the ocean, to put in place the kinds of policies 

like we are discussing today that will conserve and protect the 

ocean. 

I had a lengthy career in the private sector before working in 

ocean conservation and the good news is that we are seeing the 

emergence of a new ocean ethic in which American businesses recognize the comprehensive value of the ocean rather than discrete 

resources to be extracted. 

I appreciated the stories from the businesspeople who testified in 

favor of this reauthorization. They told very compelling and personal stories about the positive impacts that sanctuaries had on 

their businesses and in their communities. Even though it is not 

the focus of today’s hearing, I must say that I hope this ocean ethic 

prevails as the Congress debates whether to lift the moratorium on 

offshore drilling. 

Lifting the moratorium would do nothing to lower today’s gas 

prices and there are cheaper, and faster, and safer ways to solve 

our energy crisis by investing alternative technologies. By far, one 

of the most comprehensive ways to achieve our goal of a healthy 

ocean is through a sound national marine sanctuary system. 

It is one of the most critical instruments in our conservation toolbox, and it allows us to create a healthier and more resilient ocean. 

It is our duty to make the Marine Sanctuaries Act the strongest 

law it can possibly be because the ocean is in trouble. 

Sanctuaries bring the best of the ocean to life for people and give 

them firsthand opportunities to experience the beauty and the majesty of the ocean while also protecting its productivity and the lives 

who depend on that productivity. The sanctuary system has shown 

great potential to address the growing challenges facing our oceans, 

19 

to reverse declines in ocean ecosystems and to provide special 

ocean places for us and for future generations to enjoy. 

We have seen some successes along the California coast, in the 

Florida Keys and in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. While 

each sanctuary has a unique story, they all share some key elements, including well-developed community support, public education and outreach, science, and a real commitment to protect 

marine resources in a comprehensive way. 

They also reflect strong Federal leadership and close collaboration with states and other partners. We are very pleased with the 

bill you have introduced. We believe it is a thoughtful, balanced bill 

and goes a long way toward addressing the priority issues that we 

identified when this Committee met in Santa Barbara. 

We believe the limited and targeted classifications and improvements that you have included will greatly improve the nation’s 

ability to achieve its critical mandate. There are six components 

that we are especially pleased to see included. 

First, the bill significantly strengthens the core purpose of the 

sanctuary system making clear that the primary purpose is longterm protection and conservation of ocean resources, and it creates 

a strong and clear mission for the system that echoes this purpose. 

Second, it recognizes the value of protected areas in the ocean for 

replenishment and for resilience and encourages the use of zoning 

within sanctuaries, including the potential designation of marine 

reserves and other highly protected areas. 

Third, the moratorium on new sanctuaries would be removed. 

Fourth, the bill would create a process to identify and prioritize 

potential new areas for inclusion in the system and would set an 

ambitious expansion goal to include a full range of our ocean’s special and representative places by the year 2030. 

Fifth, the bill would improve the process for developing fishing 

regulations in conjunction with fishery management councils in a 

consultative process. Last, the bill would provide an adequate 

budget to accomplish these objectives. No matter what we say or 

do here, adequate budget is critically important to the success of 

the program. 

We have a few minor concerns with some specific language that 

is detailed in our written comments, and we look forward to working with you on making further improvements to address these. So 

in closing I want to reiterate Ocean Conservancy’s commitment to 

working with you, and thank you, again, for showing your dedication and leadership in moving this important effort forward. Thank 

you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Ms. Spruill, for your recommendations concerning H.R. 6537. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Spruill follows:] 

Statement of Vikki Spruill, President and CEO, 

Ocean Conservancy 

INTRODUCTION 

Good morning Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Vikki Spruill, President and CEO at Ocean Conservancy, the country’s oldest and 

largest ocean non-profit harnessing over 35 years of policy and scientific expertise 

to anticipate ecological threats and deliver sustainable solutions that protect our 

ocean and improve our quality of life. I’d like to thank Chairwoman Bordallo for her 

20 

leadership on the issue of ocean conservation and for moving the critical reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuary Act forward with the introduction of the 

H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008. My testimony today will focus 

on this bill and I will leave the discussion of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve 

Boundary Modification Act, H.R. 6204, to other panelists with greater relevant expertise on it. 

As is probably true for many of us here, the ocean has been a constant throughout 

my life. I was fortunate to grow up along the panhandle of Florida, with its sugarsand beaches and emerald waters that attract countless tourists each year. And, I 

went to school in New Orleans, not far from the Gulf of Mexico where oilrigs dot 

coastal waters and refineries light the night. For over a decade, I have been closely 

involved in ocean conservation and I am constantly reminded of the extraordinary 

vision, wisdom, and, in many cases, courage it takes to conserve our majestic ocean 

places. I am honored to represent the half a million ocean conservancy members and 

volunteers from across the country and thank you for this opportunity. 

It seems, at every turn, we are reminded of the critical role that the ocean serves 

as Earth’s life support system. The ocean covers 2/3 of the planet and provides much 

of the air we breathe, the food we need, and moderates the climate that sustains 

us. Yet, most take it for granted. So it falls to us to be the stewards of the ocean 

to put in place the kinds of policies that will conserve and protect the ocean. That 

is what brings us together today. 

While I am here representing the conservation community, there is also a sea 

change afoot throughout our culture, particularly in the business community. In recent years, we have seen the emergence of a new ‘‘ocean ethic’’ in which American 

businesses are starting to recognize the comprehensive value of the ocean, rather 

than as a collection of discrete resources to be extracted. I, too, had a lengthy career 

in the private sector and I related to the stories from the businesswomen and men 

who testified in favor of National Marine Sanctuary Reauthorization before this 

committee in June. They told personal stories about the positive impact sanctuaries 

had on their businesses and their communities. Even though it is not the focus of 

today’s hearing, I must say that I hope this ocean ethic prevails as the Congress 

debates whether to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, even though doing so 

would do nothing to lower today’s gas prices and there are cheaper, faster, safer 

ways to solve our energy crisis. 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) is one of the cornerstones of the 

conservation work we do. Is it perfect? Certainly not! Is it a critical instrument in 

our conservation toolbox that allows us to create a healthier, more resilient ocean? 

Absolutely! Therefore, it is our duty to make the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

the strongest law it can possibly be, because the ocean is in trouble. Given the existing and growing threats to ocean ecosystems, we need a strong and robust National 

Marine Sanctuary System now more than ever. 

Today there is widespread scientific recognition that multiple stressors including 

overfishing, pollution, poor land use practices, and habitat modification have been 

degrading marine ecosystems for decades, if not centuries, and are now pushing 

them beyond the breaking point. Superimposed on these multiple stressors and exacerbating their impacts, global climate change is increasingly affecting marine ecosystems and degrading them further. The good news is that there are practical steps 

we can take to turn the tide and restore our oceans and make them more resilient 

to these threats. There is increasing evidence that MPAs, especially marine reserves 

and other highly-protected ones, can help protect and restore ecosystems, maintain 

ecological integrity, increase ecosystem resilience, and provide an important hedge 

against global climate change and other stressors. Some of this new evidence is for 

the first time coming from within our National Marine Sanctuary System, as a result of the marine reserve networks that have been set up in the Florida Keys and 

California. In spite of the many challenges it faces, our existing Sanctuary System 

is already contributing to ocean health and resilience. The new and ambitious 

marine reserve network recently implemented to help protect the Great Barrier Reef 

from global climate change and other threats is also already showing positive results. 

Today, I believe, you have a watershed opportunity to clarify, strengthen, and reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. This reauthorization gives us an unprecedented opportunity to build on the Act’s successes and ensure that it achieves 

its broader mandate—and we speak for many when we thank you for moving forward today. By far, one of the most comprehensive ways to achieve our goal of a 

healthy ocean is through a sound National Marine Sanctuary System. We urge you 

to make this happen by expediting approval of the strong reauthorization bill that 

has been introduced, with some minor modifications. 

21 

SUMMARY OF OCEAN CONSERVANCY VIEWS ON H.R. 6537 

We are very pleased with the bill you have introduced. We believe it is thoughtful, 

balanced, and would go a long way toward addressing the priority issues that Ocean 

Conservancy Executive Vice President, Dr. Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, and others 

identified when this subcommittee met in Santa Barbara last November. We believe 

the limited, key, and targeted clarifications and improvements that you have included will greatly improve the National Marine Sanctuary System’s ability to fulfill 

its critical mandate. We are especially supportive of and pleased to see that you 

have included language that will help to: 

1. Update the National Marine Sanctuary System’s Findings Based on New 

Science: The Clarification of Findings, Purposes, and Policies in section three 

would greatly clarify, improve, and strengthen the NMSA. The finding in the 

new section 301(a)(3) of the Act would recognize recent scientific advances in 

delineating ocean boundaries and ecosystems that will help pave the way for 

inventorying U.S. marine ecosystems and developing a more complete, robust 

and representative Sanctuary System. New finding 301(a)(4) would similarly 

recognize the large and growing body of scientific evidence confirming the 

value of marine reserves and other highly-protected areas for restoring living 

marine resources; maintaining natural ecosystem resistance and resilience to 

multiple anthropogenic threats, now including and exacerbated by the growing 

threat of global climate change; and providing the potential to supply eggs and 

larvae to replenish populations within and adjacent to the marine protected 

areas. 2. Clarify and Strengthen the NMSA’s Purposes and Policies: Section three of the 

bill would also help clarify and strengthen the NMSA’s Purposes and Policies 

by making several key changes to section 301(b) of the Act. The new paragraph 

(2) makes clear that the overarching priority of the System is the long-term 

protection and conservation of nationally significant marine ecosystems and 

their living and non-living resources, thus removing misconceptions about the 

core purpose of the Sanctuary System. New paragraph (3) would make it a purpose of the System to include within the NMSS the full range of marine biological diversity and ecosystems, setting the stage to expand the system and 

make it more representative. New paragraph (8) retains, clarifies, and improves language allowing for the regulated public and private uses of the System’s resources to the extent that such uses are compatible and not prohibited 

by this statute or other authorities. Ocean Conservancy supports these changes 

to clarify and strengthen the NMSA’s purposes and policies. 

3. Encourage the Use of Zoning within Sanctuaries, including the Potential Use 

of Marine Reserves, Other Highly-protected Areas and other Spatial and Temporal Management Tools: We are very pleased that H.R. 6537 includes strong 

language to encourage the use of temporal and spatial zoning, among other innovative management techniques (section 3(b)). The proposed new section 

301(b)(10) of the Act,, especially when used together with other language in the 

bill referring to the ‘‘purposes and policies’’ of the Act, could go a long way toward implementing zoning and marine reserves where they are needed. We 

strongly support this language with some fine-tuning, and recommend including parallel language within the ‘‘Procedures for Designation and Implementation’’ (16 U.S.C. 1431 § 304) that would more specifically and directly require 

the consideration of these tools. Requiring such consideration would help ensure that the best available science-based management tools to achieve comprehensive resource protection are available to resource managers and that 

they are evaluated during the development, review, and revision of sanctuary 

management plans and regulations, but it would not mandate their use. There 

is a precedent for such language contained in the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990, which successfully led to the development of the Florida Keys NMS initial zoning plan and the subsequent 

Tortugas Ecological Reserve. 

4. Recognize the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) and Provide a 

Clear and Unambiguous Mission: Earlier this year, the National Marine Sanctuary Program was administratively elevated to become the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries. Language contained in H.R. 6537 section 4 would recognize this elevation in statute and also provide the NMSS with a strong, clear, 

and unambiguous mission, consistent with the stated and long-standing priority and purpose of the NMSA, to protect nationally-significant marine ecosystems. Ocean Conservancy is very supportive of the elevation to office level, 

and eventually higher, and of the proposed NMSS mission which would greatly 

improve the System’s probability for success by providing a strong, clear and 

explicit mission for the NMSS. 

22 

5. Create a Process for Identifying Waters to be included in the National Marine 

Sanctuary System and Set a Goal for Expansion and Representativeness: 

Ocean Conservancy supports and appreciates the inclusion of H.R. 6537’s section 6, ‘‘Living and Nonliving Resource Classification, Identification, and Inventory.’’ This new section would help to expand the Sanctuary System, ensure 

that each of the biogeographical provinces in U.S. waters is well-represented, 

and include areas that protect rare, critical, unique, outstanding, or otherwise 

special resources. The ultimate, anticipated, and highly-desirable goal of this 

process would be to provide a rational framework for identifying, prioritizing, 

and developing new sanctuary sites. We further support the language included 

in section 6 that calls for a new Site Evaluation List and sets a system expansion and representativeness goal to be achieved by 2030. Achieving this goal 

will clearly require adequate budgetary and human resources for the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries. 

6. Remove the Moratorium on New Sanctuaries. Ocean Conservancy supports and 

appreciates the language in H.R. 6537 in section 7 repeal the limitation on 

designation of new National Marine Sanctuaries, which is currently contained 

section 304(f) (16U.S.C. § 1434(f)). This moratorium was originally purported to 

be temporary in nature and a means to prioritize making existing, recently 

added, sanctuaries functional before adding additional new sites. Regardless of 

its initial intent, the moratorium has clearly outlived its proposed purpose and 

now constitutes a severe impediment to the rational development of an effective National Marine Sanctuary System. Despite the moratorium, the continued demand for marine protected areas has persisted and may force a greater 

reliance on the use of Marine National Monuments and Congressionally-designated National Marine Sanctuaries. Regardless, the time to lift the moratorium is now. 

7. Improve the Process for Development of Sanctuary Fishing Regulations: Ocean 

Conservancy supports and appreciates the language contained in sections 7 

and 10 of H.R. 6537. related to developing sanctuary fishing regulations. This 

language preserves the important role of fishery management councils in assisting the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries with the development of 

sanctuary fishing regulations, but clarifies the process, provides criteria and 

timelines, and ensures that resulting fishing regulations will be consistent with 

the NMSS’s and the individual sanctuaries’ purposes and policies. We are concerned that there may still be some ambiguity in the process, particularly with 

respect to the process the councils must employ to develop the regulations, and 

would be happy to work with you to make sure the bill will achieve its intended purpose. 

8. Provide an adequate budget to accomplish these objectives: Ocean Conservancy 

strongly supports the increased authorization levels contained in H.R. 6537, 

and greatly appreciates your recognition of the critical importance of the Sanctuaries Act and Program.. In our November 3, 2007 testimony before the Subcommittee in Santa Barbara, we suggested that a budget on the order of $100 

million was appropriate for the NMSS, and H.R. 6537 would authorize appropriations at roughly that level. We continue to believe that this level is welljustified, would provide for a reasonable and manageable rate of growth, and 

still be an order of magnitude below comparable authorization levels for terrestrial protected area programs, such as those managed by the U.S. National 

Park Service. In fact, an increased level could well be needed, given the increased responsibilities of the program and the expansion goal contained in 

this bill. In particular, the increased authorization level of $10 million annually 

specifically to implement the new section 303(c) (the bill authorizes $5 million) 

would help ensure a comprehensive resources classification and inventory, and 

a site selection list that represents the full range of marine ecosystems and results in an expanded System. 

CONCLUSION: 

H.R. 6537 provides a strong framework for reauthorization of the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act and addresses some key shortcomings in the existing law. 

We look forward to working with you on making further improvements to this bill 

and addressing any remaining concerns. There have been calls for more far-reaching 

changes to the NMSA which may warrant further consideration, but your approach 

goes a long way toward clarifying and improving the NMSA and addressing its most 

critical and urgent needs. 

In closing, I want to reiterate Ocean Conservancy’s commitment to working with 

you and thank you again for showing your dedication by holding this important 

hearing. 

23 

Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Gudes, welcome back to the Subcommittee, 

although today you are wearing a different hat from years past. I 

think you were with NOAA for quite a number of years, so we are 

looking forward to your testimony. Please begin. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT B. GUDES, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURERS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GUDES. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member 

Brown, Representative Capps, Representative Saxton, staff of the 

Committee. Let me first thank you for your focus on NOAA, the 

Marine Sanctuary Program. This program, marine sanctuaries, has 

helped focus public’s attention on our oceans and coasts and I think 

the analogy is often made that it is the National Park Service, National Park System of the Oceans, if you will. 

The Marine Sanctuary Program has clearly benefitted from great 

leadership over the years from the late Dr. Nancy Foster to Jack 

Dunnigan and Dan Basta today, and the program has greatly benefitted from dedicated staff, the support of hundreds of volunteers 

and of course the invaluable leadership and assistance of Lori 

Aguies and the Marine Sanctuary Foundation. 

As you know, I am pleased to be here today to represent the National Marine Manufacturers Association, America’s recreational 

boat industry. We have some 1,700 members across the country 

representing 80 percent of marine products made in the United 

States. 

I want to note at the outset that manufacturing of recreational 

boats takes place primarily in the United States, that it is done by 

American workers, and that, frankly, this is an industry that has 

not been exported to other countries, and that generally our members are small businesses, family owned small businesses, with 

about 100 to 300 workers making boats. 

There are currently 18 million recreational boats in the United 

States. Ninety-five percent of motorized boats are 26 feet or less. 

Seventy-five percent of boating households earn less than $100,000 

per year. We know through survey data that over half of all recreational boats are used for sport fishing. 

Given the location of NOAA’s marine sanctuaries, it should not 

be surprising that boating in all its aspects, sailing, fishing, cruising, water sports, occurs within sanctuary boundaries. If you think 

about it just a bit, most of the activities in a marine sanctuary, actually experiencing the sanctuary requires a boat. 

Other than people who go in from the shoreline or are in large 

research vessels, probably every boat in a marine sanctuary is 

made by my membership in the United States. Boating is about 

recreation, about quality of life, about jobs, economic significance, 

and marine sanctuaries cover a lot of our coastal waters and they 

are very important to our industry. 

In my written testimony, there are some numbers showing the 

economic significance of boating in just two of the areas, and I 

think those are actually low estimates. My key overall point today 

24 

is that access and protecting Americans rights to boat and fish is 

a huge issue for our industry and for boaters across the country. 

Maintaining access to waters and use within marine sanctuary 

boundaries is an overriding objective and concern with any reauthorization, whether it is Executive Branch, Agency action or congressional action. As my written testimony points out, we applaud 

your effort to enhance and reauthorize the Marine Sanctuaries Program; however, in our case, we do have some concerns about 

H.R. 6537 as presently drafted. 

First, the sanctuary program needs to be balanced and recognize 

not only long-term protection and conservation but also long-term 

protection and conservation of recreation, of enjoyment and use by 

people, by citizens, by your constituents. 

We strongly recommend that the mission statement in the sanctuary program and your bill in Section 4 be amended as drafted to 

include living resources, that living resources also mean people and 

the use of sanctuaries. That is true in the National Park Service 

and the National Park System, for example. There is a strong emphasis on use by people. 

Indeed, H.R. 6537 rewrites the current marine sanctuary statute 

to eliminate the program’s mission of facilitating all public and private compatible uses in sanctuaries, and we would hope that that 

would be restored. We should be encouraging boating and angling 

recreation in sanctuaries. 

Both have the ability to inspire kids, and, in fact, I would recommend, and I think probably a number of people would share, 

that education also be part of the mission and function of the sanctuaries. Second, the scope of the bill is very broad and far reaching. 

One of the changes is that it gives sanctuary managers the ability 

to manage resources outside the sanctuary boundaries. 

I suppose this relates to energy development. We were just talking about OCS drilling. It probably relates to land use development. Maybe, for example, the creation of marinas and boat ramps 

outside a sanctuary. I would just suggest this is pretty far reaching 

authority. 

In fisheries management, and this was addressed in part by the 

Congresswoman’s comments, the bill appears to make significant 

changes in law to fisheries management that would no doubt affect 

recreational fishing. What this bill language does in your draft, I 

must admit, is not exactly clear to me, but it appears to be empowering and resourcing the sanctuary program and the Ocean Service 

to be in the fisheries management business. 

I am pretty much out of time, but I would simply say that NOAA 

fisheries has something like 3,000 personnel, $830 million budget. 

Marine sanctuaries has $60 something million and about 170 Federal employees. I don’t know if this Committee is contemplating it, 

but it would require a huge change in capacity building for the 

Marine Sanctuary Program to put that program in the fisheries 

management business. 

From our industry’s standpoint, we think the Magnuson-Stevens 

bill and all the work that this very Subcommittee and this Committee has done makes a lot of sense. We are really not fond of 

changing the fisheries management program to reflect those sort of 

changes. 

25 

I would just say from my experience at NOAA, all fisheries management ends up being litigated. It is one of the nature’s of fisheries management. One should fully think about all of the ramifications that that would result in if you were to empower the Marine 

Sanctuary Program basically to be in the fisheries management 

business within each of the sanctuaries. I am out of time. Thank 

you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank you, Mr. Gudes, and I thank you for your 

excellent testimony and insights regarding the many contributions 

of the recreational boating community in building regional and 

local support for the sanctuary system. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:] 

Statement of Scott B. Gudes, Vice President of Government Relations, 

National Marine Manufacturers Association 

Good morning Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown and Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on 

H.R. 6537, the ‘‘Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008.’’ 

I am pleased to be here today representing the National Marine Manufacturers 

Association (NMMA). NMMA is the nation’s leading recreational marine industry 

trade association, representing nearly 1,700 boat builders, engine manufacturers 

and marine accessory manufacturers who collectively produce more than 80 percent 

of all recreational marine products made in the United States. The association is 

dedicated to industry growth through programs in public policy, market research 

and data, product quality assurance, marketing communications and the promotion 

of sound environmental stewardship among its consumers. 

As the former Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from 1998-2003 and subsequently the Acting NOAA Administrator for most of 2001, I am familiar with the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Program (NMSP) and appreciate the leadership that 

this Committee, both its members and professional staff, have shown for that program as well as all of the marine, ocean and coastal programs at the Agency. While 

at NOAA it was my honor to work with over 12,000 great professionals and NOAA’s 

many partners in state and local government, universities, joint institutes and grant 

recipient institutions as well as volunteers at Marine Sanctuaries. 

In my new role representing America’s historic recreational marine industry, 

which is comprised of nearly 19,000 great American companies employing more than 

154,000 U.S. workers, I represent members who are deeply interested in marine environmental protection as well as robust policies that protect and ensure the public’s 

right to access the nation’s natural resources which are held in their trust. 

Boating’s Impact and the Importance of Access 

The recreational boating community is an important stakeholder in any national 

process to enhance marine resource protection. Boating has deep historical roots in 

outdoor recreation in America and participation has been steadily trending upwards. 

In 2007, nearly 26 percent of all adults went boating at least once, which means 

that 59 million American adults were out on the water spending time with their 

family and friends and enjoying our natural resources, fishing, cruising and just 

being outdoors. As I will point out later in my statement, a lot of boating goes on 

in and around our National Marine Sanctuaries. In fact, except for individuals who 

enter the water from shore or who are aboard larger vessels, it is safe to say that 

almost all visitors to these sites are on a boat built by a member of the National 

Marine Manufacturers Association. 

There are nearly 18 million recreational boats currently in operation in the 

United States. These boat owners power an important American manufacturing sector that contributed $37.5 billion in new sales and services during 2007 alone. Overall, the direct and indirect economic impact nationwide from recreational boating totals approximately $85.1 billion annually and supports more than 330,000 U.S. jobs. 

I might also note that recreational boat manufacturing is a sector of the economy 

that is largely carried out by small businesses and manufacturing that occurs here 

in the USA. 

The Members of the Subcommittee might be interested to know that the vast majority of recreational boats sold are small are inexpensive pleasure craft used occasionally, and 75 percent of current boat owners have an average household of less 

26 

than $100,000 per year. Of the recreational boat population in the U.S., 95 percent 

of registered mechanically-propelled boats are less than 26 feet in length. The average price of a new boat in 2007 was under $14,000, and boat owners spent an average of 32 days (or 16 total weekends) on the water. 

Recreational boating and angling are closely tied, and we are frequently engaged 

in important fisheries concerns. Of current boat owners, we know that 65 percent 

used their boat in 2005 to go fishing. Indeed, many boats are designed and purchased specifically for the purpose of sportfishing, a $40 billion industry for which 

NOAA has developed a five-year strategic plan designed to ‘‘provide recreational 

fishing opportunities by ensuring sustainable fisheries resources, understandable 

regulations, and reasonable public access.’’ In this plan, NOAA explicitly acknowledges that maintaining public access, which is essential to both sportfishing and 

boating, is a key part of its mission, and, in fact, such activities are usually included 

in assessing the economic benefits from sanctuaries. 

Although more Americans went boating in 2007 than in 2006, our industry is certainly feeling the turbulence in consumer confidence, finance, and energy costs that 

is facing our economy. Other than inflatable boats, jet boats and personal 

watercraft, all segments in the recreational marine industry showed a decline in 

unit sales this year. Also in 2007, the typically robust aftermarket accessory market 

decreased with sales down an estimated 5 percent, reflecting an overall weakness 

in our industry. These declines have caused many of our manufacturers around the 

country to furlough plants or close them altogether, resulting in job losses. 

While we are optimistic about the future and we believe the fundamentals our 

business and the American economy are strong, I emphasize these numbers to demonstrate why we must be vigilant in the maintaining a vibrant consumer base and 

keep recreational opportunities for American boaters and anglers widespread and 

available. 

National Marine Sanctuaries are Important for Boating and Outdoor 

Recreation 

Given the location of the current sanctuary system in coastal communities in 

areas like the Florida Keys, and the Southern and Central Californian coasts, it 

should not be surprising that boating in all its aspects, such as recreational fishing, 

sailing, and water sports, occurs within sanctuary boundaries. Sanctuaries, like the 

National Parks they are so often compared with, provide for the multi-use of resources, working to conserve resources but also providing for outdoor recreational 

opportunities. Sanctuaries are living classrooms, where constituencies are built by 

the very recreational boaters, anglers, divers, and other responsible users of the resources. 

In the area around the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, for example, 

there are some 37,000 registered boats and more than 272 recreational boating businesses. Our data shows that each year, during the 861,000 total days people spent 

boating in this area, some $140 million is spent on boat related products and services and an additional $92 million on boating trips, generating nearly 3,800 local 

jobs. 

Similarly, in the area around the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

there are some 17,000 registered recreational boats and over 83 recreational boating 

businesses. Boaters here spent 318,000 total days out on the water, spending $65 

million on boat related products and services and boating trips. We estimate that 

almost 1,100 jobs are directly related to boating and fishing in this area alone. 

Sanctuary Reauthorization Should Better Consider Value of Recreation to 

System Purposes & Objectives 

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we applaud you for your 

efforts to enhance the National Marine Sanctuary Program. For boating consumers, 

recreational anglers and the marine manufacturers who build the products they 

purchase, the health of America’s marine resources is of vital importance. We recognize the special national significance of currently designated National Marine Sanctuaries and we appreciate your legislative efforts to reauthorize and strengthen the 

Program. 

We are, however, increasingly concerned that public access to our nation’s oceans 

and aquatic resources is becoming unduly restricted in place of policies that promote 

sound conservation and responsible recreation. Increasingly we are seeing states 

from California to South Carolina moving to restrict water access, and we are hearing reports in major national news outlets that large swaths of new protected areas 

may be designated by The President through Executive Order—with the mere 

stroke of a pen—without the stakeholder processes, without involving citizens, and 

without using science-based decision-making that has, in the main, served as the 

27 

guiding principles for those protected areas in the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. We believe this trend is worrisome and not consistent with longstanding 

American policy that promotes sustainable outdoor recreation. 

To be sure, NMMA does not oppose the designation of marine protected areas in 

the event of significant ecological concerns for which the prevailing scientific 

evidence—which is peer reviewed and methodologically robust—demonstrates that 

such a designation is necessary to protect resources. But, we encourage Congress 

and federal agencies to recognize that it is a longstanding policy of the federal government to allow public access to public lands and waters for recreational purposes 

consistent with sound conservation. This policy is reflected in the principles of our 

wildlife refuges, national forests, national parks, and wilderness areas. We believe 

this policy should pertain to NOAA and National Marine Sanctuaries as well reflected in any final reauthorization bill for a strengthened National Marine Sanctuaries Program. 

Indeed, throughout the legislative history of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 

Congress has clearly and consistently demonstrated that it favors a management 

approach that balances preservation of the resource with allowing compatible 

human uses, such as recreational boating and angling. In the most recent reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, too, Congress reiterated its desire to maintain 

robust access to our ocean resources to recreational anglers and directed federal regulators to utilize no-take marine reserves only as a resource management tool of 

last resort. Some have argued that the reliance on the multiple use doctrine has 

made the National Marine Sanctuaries Program less effective than it could be. We 

strongly disagree. In fact, the Program has had many significant accomplishments 

and has been instrumental in protecting key marine sites and educating the public 

about the importance of these areas and of the importance of sound environmental 

stewardship more generally. 

Under current law, NOAA and the National Marine Sanctuary Program have an 

obligation, stated explicitly, to strive toward a management approach that balances 

resource protection with the rights of boaters, anglers and other user groups who 

are entitled to access the public aquatic treasures that are held in the their trust. 

A reasonable expectation of access is currently required under the law. Certainly 

this is what Congress intended when it passed the Act and in each case when it 

reauthorized the Act—a comprehensive system of managing key ocean resources 

that emphasized balance and not prohibition. We believe this tradition should be followed and even strengthened in this reauthorization round because maintaining 

public access is good for the resource—it motivates sustainable practice by those 

who value the resources most, and it helps to maintain a cooperative, non-adversarial relationship between regulators and the regulated community, enhancing opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships that improve resource protection. 

For example, my colleagues at the Personal Watercraft Industry Association 

(PWIA), an affiliate of NMMA, are currently working with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries to develop a program in which personal watercraft are 

used by volunteers to educate visitors on the sanctuaries resources. We look forward 

to the implementation of what we believe is an exciting opportunity for our industry 

and FKNMS. 

Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, nowhere does H.R. 6537 endorse the importance of recreation as policy or purpose of the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. Indeed, it appears that the bill would deemphasize and downgrade longstanding Congressional intent and NOAA policy by amending the policies and purposes of the Act to require that the ‘‘primary purpose’’ of the NMSP be the ‘‘longterm protection and conservation of the living and nonliving resources of the System.’’ Undoubtedly, the long-term protection of the resource is essential, but the bill 

goes further and would strike existing statutory language in Sec. 301(b)(6) of the 

Act directing NOAA to ‘‘facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources.’’ This revision to the Act runs counter to the notion that—while resource protection is the primary objective of the Act—recreational opportunities should be encouraged and, indeed, are a key part of the individual sanctuary programs particularly with respect 

to outreach and education. 

We would strongly recommend that the bill be revised to recognize specifically 

recreation as an important purpose and objective, to retain and even expand on the 

Act’s current language that directs the sanctuary managers to engage the public 

and promote recreational opportunities. To be clear, the current NMSP mission in 

Section 4 of the Committee bill should be amended to include people. I respectfully 

suggest that the mission statement should include balance by firmly stating that 

public access, recreation and enjoyment (to use a term in the National Park Service 

28 

charter) are also important missions of the system. I also recommend that ‘‘education’’ of the public and youth should be explicitly listed in the mission statement. 

Expansion Goal Raises Concerns 

Given trend lines we have seen with respect to new marine protected areas being 

established in premier recreational boating and sport fishing sites in the U.S., the 

amorphous and ambiguous legislative requirement in H.R. 6537 that the Secretary 

of Commerce ‘‘strive to achieve the goal of including in the System by 2030 that 

number of sites that will incorporate a full range of the Nation’s marine eco regions 

[which the bill defines as a ‘large area of the marine environment’]’’ concerns us. 

We believe that sound science—rather than simple geography—and the specific 

needs of a resource should be determining factors in the designation of a marine 

protected area. It makes no sense to simply designate large marine sites for the purpose of being in the System, something which could have significant unintended consequences. 

Indeed, a review of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act demonstrates that Congress harbored concerns that the National Marine Sanctuaries Program would overreach in designating new sanctuaries. Section 303(b)(1) lists the factors that the 

Secretary of Commerce must consider when determine if an area should be designated a sanctuary such as ‘‘the manageability of the area, including such factors 

as its size, its ability to be identified as a discrete ecological unit with definable 

boundaries, its accessibility, and its suitability for monitoring and enforcement activities.’’ We are pleased that H.R. 6537 does not alter these requirements. The National Marine Sanctuaries Program currently has broad discretionary authority to 

initiate a designation process—complete with robust public participation requirements—for new sanctuaries. Rather than adding undue resource constraints by requiring new sanctuaries, we believe the Agency should continue to work to improve 

the current system of sanctuaries. 

Additionally, Madam Chair, NMMA is concerned that Sec. 12(h) (A) of the bill 

greatly expands the authorities of the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. While 

we applaud efforts to increase coordination among federal agencies, it is important 

to not give sanctuary managers authority over resources that are not within the 

sanctuary boundaries. As written, it appears that the bill would extend the scope 

of the Act to ‘‘Federal agency actions within or outside of a national marine sanctuary or marine national monument.’’ All that would be required is a determination—apparently by a sanctuary manager—that an activity is likely to harm a system resource. This language is vague, expansive, and we would urge its removal 

from the bill. 

Fisheries Management Should Remain Led by NOAA Fisheries Working in 

Concert with Regional Fishery Management Councils 

While they can be valuable, marine protected areas—and particularly no-take 

marine reserves—are not a panacea for fisheries management. Indeed, we are concerned with language in the ‘‘Findings’’ section of the bill affirming that science has 

proven the value of marine protected areas. As with many issues before the scientific community, the value of marine protected areas has been much debated. 

While there may be scientific studies that show the benefit of marine protected 

areas, there are also scientific studies that show that marine protected areas do not 

provide significant benefit beyond traditional fishery management measures. While 

marine protected areas may serve a purpose within the context of ocean resource 

management, it may be premature for Congress to affirm with absolute certainty 

the value of such areas. In any case, the use of marine protected areas as a management tool may have significant impacts on the regulated community, and MPAs 

should be pursued only with the proper view on their potential short- and long-term 

socioeconomic implications. 

At present, as the Committee is well aware, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the prevailing federal authority and structure for 

the management of the nation’s ocean and coastal fisheries. The Congress just recently reauthorized this law and provided new requirements to conserve resources 

and prevent overfishing. Under the Act, regional fishery management councils 

which contain stakeholders nominated by Governors and appointed by the Secretary 

of Commerce (Administrator of NOAA) regulate and supported by the full scientific 

and management expertise at NOAA—has responsibility for the sustainable management of fisheries in federal waters. And as part of their management authority, 

councils may, and are, utilizing MPAs. The authority of the regional management 

councils should be recognized, and yet H.R. 6537 appears to shift authority away 

from them. 

29 

It has been my experience from my years as a professional staffer in the U.S. Senate and an official at NOAA that the Fisheries Management Councils are indeed 

unique among Federal regulatory entities. They involve the Federal Government, 

the States, the industry and outside groups in the management of marine resources. 

But, at the end of the day, few outside entities better bring together large number 

of disparate stakeholders in the management of the resource. 

We do not believe that the revisions in Sec. 7 of the Sanctuary Enhancement Act 

are necessary or advisable. Fishery Management Councils currently have the opportunity to prepare draft fishing regulations in a National Marine Sanctuary, or it 

may determine that such regulations are not necessary. If the Council deems it necessary to regulate fishing within a sanctuary, it is obligated to use as guidance the 

National Standards of Sec. 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The point is that 

the operative statute for fishing regulations within a sanctuary is MSA, and under 

present law the Secretary of Commerce has broad authority to accept or reject the 

Council’s determination and regulate fishing within a sanctuary 

Our reading of the Committee bill is that it would significantly change Federal 

fisheries management large sections of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: 

• First, it removes Fishery Management Councils from the initial decision-making 

process regarding whether to regulate fishing in the sanctuary, giving the Secretary of Commerce the authority to unilaterally determine whether to regulate 

fishing. 

• Second, H.R. 6537 empowers the Secretary to make such a determination for 

new, existing, or proposed sanctuaries—this authority would contravene the existing process of updating management plans which provide opportunities for 

the public to weigh in and support or oppose changing a sanctuary designation 

document to include the authority to regulate fishing. 

• Third, existing language in the Act explicitly requires in the statute using the 

National Standards of MSA in the development of any fishing regulations within the sanctuary. H.R. 6537 does not appear to have such a requirement. 

• Fourth, we believe the proposed changes in H.R. 6537 are unnecessary and set 

NOAA Fisheries/NMFS and NOAA’s sanctuary program up for conflict, rather 

than cooperation. We understand that NOAA is finalizing a Policy Document 

regarding its regulation of fishing in National Marine Sanctuaries that demonstrates the Agency’s work and commitment to improved coordination and collaboration between programs. We see no need for legislative changes on this 

matter at this time and urge the Subcommittee to let this internal agency process play out. 

I would note that NOAA Fisheries has over 3,000 employees and a budget of $829 

million in FY 2008 and $782 in the President’s FY 2009 budget request. The marine 

sanctuaries program, by contrast, has a budget of $64 million ($50 million in the 

President’s FY 2009 budget) to do all its missions and 169 full time employees. To 

take on this level of fishery resource management responsibly would require a lot 

of capacity building in sanctuaries. It would take the addition of many staff. I would 

respectfully suggest that the program has many other unfulfilled requirements in 

education, in research, in facilities, and in vessels and maintenance. 

For these reasons, we believe Sec. 7 of the SEA Act is a significant departure from 

the status quo with unpredictable consequences and would strongly encourage you 

to reconsider the inclusion of this language in the bill. 

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers 

Association and the recreational marine industry. We look forward to continuing to 

work with you on this legislation and other important legislation, and I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I would like to now invite Mr. Sullivan to testify. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

AND CEO, THE MARINERS’ MUSEUM 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the 

Committee. My name is Tim Sullivan, I am President of the 

Mariners’ Museum in Newport News, Virginia, and President 

Emeritus of the College of William and Mary. I have worked closely 

with the National Marine Sanctuary Program during my tenure as 

30 

museum President and have been keenly aware of their work for 

the last decade at the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify during this oversight 

hearing. As you are aware, the Mariners’ Museum has considered 

NOAA and those associated with the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program key partners for more than 20 years in the important 

work of preserving and protecting the story of the most famous and 

arguably most significant shipwreck in United States Naval history, the U.S.S. Monitor. 

Designated in 1975 as our nation’s first national marine sanctuary, the Monitor holds a special place not only in the history of 

Virginia and North Carolina but in the Nation as a whole. 

In the 1980s, the Mariners’ Museum was selected to serve as the 

official repository of the artifacts recovered from the wreck site of 

the Monitor as NOAA began the process of selective recovery of key 

artifacts from that shipwreck which ultimately would include the 

ship’s engine, propeller, and most significantly, her revolutionary 

revolving gun turret and cannons. 

During those years of major artifact recovery between 1998 and 

2002, NOAA and the Mariners’ Museum worked together, and we 

have developed a world-class facility to house and display these important artifacts dedicated solely to the preservation of the Monitor’s story. That facility, I am proud to say, opened in March of 

2007 to rave reviews. 

Today, the U.S.S. Monitor Center at the Mariners’ Museum has 

become one of the premiere maritime attractions in this country, 

if not the world. The Conservation Department has set the standard for scientific treatment of large, complex artifacts recovered 

from a marine environment. 

I believe the partnership between NOAA and the Mariners’ Museum is serving as a model of public/private efforts to preserve our 

nation’s maritime heritage. The Monitor Center has also done 

much more than preserve history. It has also helped shape the future, our future. 

Through our partnership with the Sanctuary Program, NOAA 

has also helped us protect our local heritage, expand tourism and 

strengthen our economy, not to mention helping our community understand the challenges and threats the ocean faces. 

Twenty years after we began our partnership with NOAA I can 

tell you that our community and our museum are stronger because 

of the sanctuary program, and we look forward to the next 20 years 

working together. As a museum dedicated to telling the story of 

man and the sea, NOAA’s work in preserving and uncovering our 

nation’s maritime heritage wherever it may be is deeply important 

to the Mariners’ Museum. 

At its core, the work of the Mariners’ Museum is about preservation. I believe NOAA has done a tremendous job in preserving our 

nation’s maritime heritage within the protected waters of the national marine sanctuaries. I also believe they are doing truly important work for our nation in discovering, documenting and cataloging new marine heritage resources in our oceans and in our waters. 

I am worried about what can be done quickly to afford these resources protection. Our nation’s maritime heritage is at risk from 

31 

looting, illegal salvage, damage and loss. Additionally, once a site 

is disturbed, either by natural or human forces, the deterioration 

of the site inevitably accelerates, so prompt action is needed to assure that proper preservation and conservation efforts can be undertaken as quickly as possible. 

As the law now stands, little can be done to protect these important discoveries unless they lie within the boundaries of the established national marine sanctuary. I would therefore respectfully 

urge the Committee and the Congress to find ways to improve the 

efficiency of this process of designation and of amending designation documents after a sanctuary is designated. 

I further urge you to develop a new process for designating sanctuaries or special areas of conservation for submerged cultural resources to assure expedient preservation efforts. Even as we speak, 

archaeologists from the National Marine Sanctuary Program are 

working off the coast of North Carolina to document and discover 

ships lost during the second world war. 

Madam Chairman, I am aware of the new legislation that is the 

subject of this hearing. I believe that it contains much in it that 

will move the National Marine Sanctuaries Program in a good and 

positive direction and will serve the interests of the future of the 

citizens of this country working together with the leadership of our 

nation in preserving these important national cultural marine enterprises. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for your thoughtful 

statement and for the ongoing efforts of the Mariners’ Museum to 

enlighten the American public about the rich maritime history 

along the mid-Atlantic coast of the United States. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

Statement of Timothy J. Sullivan, Executive Director and CEO, 

Mariners’ Museum 

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. My name is Timothy Sullivan. I am the President of The Mariners’ Museum in Newport News, VA, 

and the former President of the College of William and Mary in Virginia. I have 

worked closely with National Marine Sanctuary Program during my time as Museum President and have been keenly aware of their work at the Monitor National 

Marine Sanctuary for the past decade. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on 

this oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act. 

As you are aware, The Mariners’ Museum has considered NOAA and the National 

Marine Sanctuary Program a key partner for more than two decades in the important work of preserving and protecting the story of the most famous and arguably 

most significant shipwreck in United States naval history—the U.S.S. Monitor. Designated our nation’s first National Marine Sanctuary in 1975, the Monitor holds a 

special place in the history of not only Virginia and North Carolina, but to the nation as a whole as she played an important role in the preservation of the Union 

during the difficult years of the American Civil War. In the 1980s, The Mariners’ 

Museum was selected to serve as the official repository for artifacts recovered from 

the wreck site of the Monitor as NOAA began the process of selective recovery of 

key artifacts from the shipwreck which ultimately would include the ships engine, 

propeller and most significantly, her revolutionary revolving gun turret and cannons. 

During the years of major artifact recovery, between 1998 and 2002, NOAA and 

the United States Navy recovered literally thousands of artifacts from the shipwreck 

along with the remains of two United States sailors lost the night the Monitor sank 

on New Year’s Eve 1862. Working together, NOAA and the Mariners’ Museum have 

developed a world-class facility to house and display these important artifacts, dedicated solely to the preservation of the Monitor story. That facility I am proud to 

say opened last March to rave reviews. Today, The USS Monitor Center at The 

32 

Mariners’ Museum has become one of the premier maritime attractions in the country if not in the world and the conservation department has set the standard for 

scientific treatment of large, complex artifacts recovered from a marine environment. With an international team of conservators and the newly completed laboratory complex, the 200+ tons of material recovered from the Monitor are undergoing 

desalination and chemical and electrochemical processes. Through viewing platforms 

and internet webcams and blogging, the public is given a unique opportunity to 

watch the ongoing conservation efforts. Thus the partnership between NOAA and 

The Mariners’ Museum is serving as a model of private/public efforts to preserve 

our nation’s maritime heritage. 

The Monitor Center has also done much more than just preserve history. It has 

also helped shape the future—our future. Through our partnership with the Sanctuary Program, NOAA has also helped protect our local heritage, our tourism, and 

our economy and has helped our community better understand the challenges and 

threats our oceans face. The Sanctuary Program has brought enhanced recreational 

opportunities, educational initiatives, research capabilities and economic development to our community. Working with our partners at NOAA, the Monitor Center 

has become a major tourist attraction and point of pride for the communities of 

Hampton Roads and most certainly for the City of Newport News. In fact, attendance at our facility has almost doubled in the year since the USS Monitor Center 

opened and tens of thousands of school children have been inspired by the story of 

the Monitor and her famous Battle of the Ironclads in Hampton Roads in 1862. In 

addition to the work on the USS Monitor, we have also had the terrific opportunity 

to work with NOAA on other projects and initiatives and have benefited greatly 

from the Sanctuary Program’s ongoing work around the country in promoting and 

preserving our nation’s maritime heritage. Twenty plus years after we began our 

partnership with NOAA, I can tell you that our community and our Museum are 

stronger because of NOAA and the Sanctuary Program and we look forward to the 

next twenty years working together. 

As a museum dedicated to telling the story of man and the sea, NOAA’s work in 

preserving and uncovering our Nation’s maritime heritage—wherever it may be— 

is of keen interest to The Mariners’ Museum. At the core of our mission, The 

Mariners Museum is about preservation. I believe NOAA has done a tremendous job 

in preserving our nation’s maritime heritage within the protected waters of our National Marine Sanctuaries, and I believe they are doing truly important work for 

our Nation in discovering, documenting and cataloging new marine heritage resources in our oceans and great lake waters. But I am worried about what can be 

done to quickly afford these resources protection once they are discovered. Our Nation’s maritime heritage is at risk from looting, illegal salvage, damage and loss. Additionally, once a site is disturbed—either by natural or human forces—the deterioration of the site accelerates considerably. Thus prompt action is needed to assure 

that proper preservation and conservation efforts can be undertaken as quickly as 

possible. 

As NOAA and the Sanctuary Program continue their important work of cataloging 

our Nation’s marine heritage resources, little can currently be done to protect those 

important discoveries unless they lie within the boundaries of an established National Marine Sanctuary. I would therefore respectively urge the committee and the 

congress to find ways to improve the efficiency of the process for designating sanctuaries and amending designation documents after a sanctuary is designated. I further urge you to develop a new process for designating sanctuaries or special areas 

of conservation for submerged cultural resources for expedient preservation efforts 

Even as we speak, Archaeologists from the National Martine Sanctuary Program 

are working in the waters off the coast of North Carolina to document and discover 

ships lost during the Second World War during the Battle of the Atlantic including 

three German U-Boats. Many of the discoveries being made are important to our 

national story, and yet once the divers leave the site, very little can be done to protect them from looting as they are not protected by the National Marine Sanctuary 

Act. In fact the sites which have been visited by these archaeologists in the past 

few weeks show unbelievable destruction by looters and souvenir hunters in spite 

of the fact that these sites are war graves. From the Museum’s perspective, these 

NOAA-sponsored expeditions are important to the Museum as they become the content for new exhibits, programs and educational initiatives, but they are only the 

first step. As I consider the success we have had with Monitor, I can only wonder 

what the site of the Monitor would look like today if the Sanctuaries Act had not 

been put into play to protect the wreck shortly after the Monitor was discovered. 

I have no doubt that had the United States government not moved swiftly after the 

wreck was positively discovered in 1974, that there would be little left to protect 

today. I believe we must work to strengthen the National Marine Sanctuary Act so 

33 

that new maritime heritage discoveries can be quickly protected just as the Monitor 

was. 

As this demonstrates one of the main pillars of working with a sanctuary or with 

the System is partnerships. As we have experienced and no doubt many others have 

as well, working with NOAA and the Sanctuary System is a positive experience 

when two or more groups are focused on a common goal or vision. Great things have 

come out of this type of approach and no doubt great things will come in the future. 

I want to also make a statement about the importance of the National Marine 

Sanctuary System to this Nation’s ocean conservation ethic. As far as Federal leadership, it’s all we have. As the only Federal agency dedicated to protecting living 

as well as cultural and historical resources of the sea, Sanctuaries protect our 

oceans just as the Park Service is focused on terrestrial conservation. If we have 

learned anything from the terrestrial or land experience of conservation related ethics, and the dimension, its about places, special places. Sanctuaries are these special 

places. We need this continued leadership and partnership is important to the 

Mariners Museum and many others like us. 

As president of an institution that has for more than 75 years dedicated itself to 

preserving our maritime past, I urge you to pass reauthorization of the National 

Marine Sanctuary Act and to include those amendments that would strengthen the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Program’s ability to protect our Nation’s maritime heritage and to improve the efficiency of the process for designating sanctuaries and 

amending designation documents after a sanctuary is designated. I strongly encourage you to develop a new process for designating sanctuaries or special areas of conservation for submerged cultural resources for quick preservation efforts. And lastly, 

I urge you to lift the moratorium on the designation of new sanctuaries and to help 

find ways to identify and prioritize new maritime heritage sites considered for designation. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Now, as Chair, I recognize Mr. Kroll. I commend 

you for your leadership role in chairing the Thunder Bay Sanctuary 

Advisory Council, and I look forward to hearing from you regarding 

the proposed expansion of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Please begin. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN KROLL, CHAIR, THUNDER BAY 

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY ADVISORY COUNCIL, 

DIVING REPRESENTATIVE 

Mr. KROLL. Thank you, and good morning, Madam Chair and 

members of the Committee. My name is Steve Kroll, I am a 57 year 

resident of Rogers City, Michigan, a retired high school math 

teacher and Chair of the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council. 

I have owned and operated a dive shop and charter business in 

Presque County, Michigan, for 35 years. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve 

Boundary Modification Act. I might say that my mother advised me 

that they don’t give you much time to talk, so don’t stutter. 

I am here today to support H.R. 6204 because it would add some 

protection to some of the nation’s best preserved shipwrecks and 

expand successful sanctuary programs to other communities in 

northeast Michigan. Communities along the coast of Presque and 

Alcona Counties are maritime-oriented and ready to recapture, preserve and protect their maritime heritage. 

I have been diving area shipwrecks for 42 years and can testify 

that they are the best preserved shipwrecks in the world and there 

are many more to be found. I have brought photos of two of these 

shipwrecks, the F.T. Barney on the right and the Florida on the 

left. The F.T. Barney is a 130 foot schooner that sank near Rogers 

City in 1868. 

34 

You would find a ship that looks ready to sail if you took the 

time to dive on her. A ship’s wheel, one mast still standing, anchors, rigging blocks, dishes, running lights and the compass are 

all there for us to see. This wreck is listed in the National Register 

of Historic Places. 

The Florida is a 271 foot wooden steamer that sank off the shore 

of Presque in 1889. The wreck is mostly intact, and in addition to 

containing all of its ships artifacts, it is loaded with a cargo called 

general stores, items that served everyday needs of people at that 

time. 

Both of these wrecks are outside of the current sanctuary boundaries and are not provided the same protection as shipwrecks inside the sanctuary. It is very important that you understand one 

important part of this testimony because I was originally against 

the establishment of the sanctuary. 

I believed having the Federal government determine what we 

should do with our resources would lead to too many restrictions. 

This attitude was shared by many citizens and expressed at public 

hearings prior to designation. As a result, the proposed size of the 

sanctuary was greatly reduced. 

I now see that this was unfortunate as the sanctuary has proven 

itself a trusted partner, not just with the State of Michigan, but 

also with the local community. The Sanctuary Program should 

serve as a model for other government programs. Public input is 

received by NOAA with the attitude they can learn, react and grow 

from it. 

I have been involved in this process, and I can assure you it is 

very real and working. What will an expanded Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary mean to northeast Michigan? I believe 

that an expanded sanctuary will provide increased protection for 

shipwrecks in Presque and Alcona Counties and provide greater opportunities for education, research, long-term monitoring and law 

enforcement. 

I personally support sanctuary boundary expansion because I believe it will provide a vehicle for education. Yes, we need to protect 

these shipwrecks, but it is not just about them. It is about our past, 

present, and most importantly, our future. The sanctuary has programs and opportunities for individuals of all ages to utilize and 

enhance their educational skills. 

I have seen this firsthand as a Judge for the International Remotely Operated Vehicle Building Competition which inspires students to pursue careers in math, science, marine technology and 

archeology. Whether it is a young person learning to map a shipwreck site, a graduate student researching shipbuilding or a family 

building a boat together, it is about passing on the values we have 

preserved. 

Volunteer participation is a testament to community support for 

the sanctuary. The sanctuary has over 100 volunteers whose talents and expertise are utilized daily in the operation of the sanctuary. I am one of those volunteers because I believe in the sanctuary’s mission. I strongly urge you to pass both H.R. 6204 and the 

Sanctuary Enhancement Act because I believe sanctuaries benefit 

not just northeast Michigan, but the entire United States. 

35 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity to testify before the Committee. I will be glad to return and answer any questions you may 

have. I also invite you to visit and experience northeast Michigan’s 

lower peninsula. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I will take you up on that invitation, 

Mr. Kroll. I want to thank you very much for your testimony this 

morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kroll follows:] 

Statement of Steve Kroll, Chair, 

Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council 

Good morning Madame Chair and members of the committee. My name is Steve 

Kroll. I’m a 57-year resident of Rogers City, Michigan, a retired high school math 

teacher, and Chair of the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council. I’ve owned and 

operated a dive shop and charter business in Presque Isle County, Michigan for 35 

years. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act. 

I’m here today to support H.R. 6204 because it would add protection to some of 

the nation’s best preserved shipwrecks and expand successful sanctuary programs 

to other communities in northeast Michigan. Communities along the coasts of 

Presque and Alcona Counties are maritime orientated and ready to recapture, preserve, and protect their maritime heritage. I’ve been diving area shipwrecks for 42 

years and can testify that they are the best preserved shipwrecks in the world and 

there are many more to be found. I’ve brought photos of two of these shipwrecks: 

the F.T. Barney and the Florida. Diving on the F.T. Barney, a 130-foot schooner 

that sank near Rogers City in 1868, you would find a ship that looks ready to sail. 

A ship’s wheel, one mast still standing, anchors, rigging blocks, dishes, running 

lights, and the compass are all there to see. This wreck is listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places. The Florida is a 271-foot wooden streamer that sank off 

the shore of Presque Isle in 1889. The wreck is mostly intact, and in addition to 

containing all of its ship artifacts, it’s loaded with a cargo called general stores, 

items that served the everyday needs of the people at that time. Both of these 

wrecks are outside of current sanctuary boundaries and are not provided the same 

protection as shipwrecks inside the sanctuary. 

It’s very important that you understand that originally I was against establishment of the sanctuary. I believed having the federal government determine what we 

should do with our resources would lead to too many restrictions. This attitude was 

shared by many citizens and expressed at public hearings prior to designation. As 

a result, the proposed size of the sanctuary was greatly reduced. I now see that was 

unfortunate since the sanctuary has proven itself as a trusted partner, not just with 

the State of Michigan, but also with the local community. The sanctuary program 

should serve as a model for other government programs. Public input is received by 

NOAA with the attitude that they can learn, react, and grow from it. I’ve been involved in the process and can assure you it’s real and working. 

On May 22, 2007, the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council voted to recommend expansion of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The advisory 

council represents local governments and community interests including diving, 

fishing, and economic development. Prior to this vote, I was part of the working 

group that evaluated the pros and cons of expanding the sanctuary. The working 

group considered the following in our discussions: how many additional shipwrecks 

would be protected, how sanctuary programs could be expanded to other communities, and the impact of expansion on existing sanctuary operations. The working 

group came to the conclusion that there was no reason not to expand the boundary 

and many reasons to expand it. When the working group presented its findings to 

the full advisory council, there was considerable enthusiasm and no dissent. Many 

county entities and citizen groups of both Presque Isle and Alcona counties also 

voiced their support for this expansion. 

What will an expanded Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary mean to northeast Michigan? I believe that an expanded sanctuary will provide increased protection for shipwrecks in Presque Isle and Alcona Counties and provide greater opportunities for education, research, long-term monitoring, and law enforcement. I personally support sanctuary boundary expansion because I believe it will provide a vehicle for education. Yes, we need to protect the wrecks but it is not just about them. 

It’s about our past, present, and most importantly our future. The sanctuary has 

programs and opportunities for individuals of all age levels to utilize and enhance 

36 

their educational skills. I’ve seen this firsthand as a judge for an international Remotely Operated Vehicle Building Competition, which inspires students to pursue 

careers in math, science, marine technology, and archaeology. Whether it’s a young 

person learning to map a shipwreck site, a graduate student researching ship building, or a family building a boat together, it’s about passing on the values we’ve preserved. 

Volunteer participation is a testament to community support of the sanctuary. 

The sanctuary has over 100 volunteers whose talents and expertise are utilized 

daily in the operation of the sanctuary. I’m one of those volunteers because I believe 

in the sanctuary’s mission. 

In regard to the Sanctuary Enhancement Act, I have not had the opportunity to 

review this act but I do support NOAA working with non-governmental partners to 

enhance support for the sanctuary because I’ve seen it positively affect the community. A perfect example is the successful partnership between the sanctuary and 

Alpena Regional Medical Center which led to funding of a hyperbaric chamber facility in northeast Michigan. The facility provides treatment for divers suffering diverelated injuries and treats other patients with aliments that benefit from hyperbaric 

oxygen treatment. 

I strongly urge you to pass both H.R. 6204 and the Sanctuary Enhancement Act 

because I believe sanctuaries benefit not just northeast Michigan, but the entire 

United States. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before the Committee. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Now, I recognize Mr. Marks. Thank you for being 

with us, and you are now recognized to testify for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICK MARKS, PRINCIPAL, 

HOFFMAN, SILVER, GILMAN & BLASCO 

Mr. MARKS. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Brown and distinguished members of Subcommittee, greetings. My comments on the 

Sanctuary Enhancement Act today here are my own but they do 

reflect the opinions of my clients and colleagues that operate in 

fisheries around the Nation in and out of seven existing sanctuaries. 

I appreciate your effort to retain some of the focus on the unique 

areas that are of special national significance. The inventory provision in your bill specifies that discrete areas be considered for designation, and this is very important because it maintains the consistency with what the regulated community believes the targeted 

focus of the Act should be and is. 

I also support clarification for the regulated public and private 

uses of sanctuary resources and your willingness to address the 

fishing regulation issue. I also appreciate the consultation provision 

for the tribes. I note that the Olympic Coast Sanctuary is a special 

case, the only one that encompasses four usual unaccustomed areas 

of the Northwest Treaty tribes. 

I am a bit disheartened that there is not a specific provision in 

this bill to deal with the elevation of that issue, but I do hope that 

you will work with the tribes to elevate their role in that sanctuary 

to the appropriate level. Finally, I applaud your authorization levels for additional appropriations. 

In terms of my areas of concern, the bill lacks a requirement for 

sanctuary decisions to be based on the best scientific information 

available. There is a perception that exists that sanctuary decisions 

are more policy than science driven. You can resolve this issue by 

applying scientific integrity to all sanctuary decisions using the 

standards in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Your bill also contains new requirements that require the Sanctuary Program to identify and protect maritime heritage resources. 

37 

Based on my work in and around the graveyard of the Atlantic, I 

certainly would support that. However, the term expands to an undefined area concept in the bill and that has some serious resource 

use implications. 

H.R. 6537 requires a specific review of the impacts of fishing but 

would not require the same review of any other activities. This unitary focus, I believe, is unrealistic because merely addressing fishery issues will not necessarily protect the sanctuary or the ecosystem. 

H.R. 6537 also repeals the designation limitation. My concern 

here, Madam Chair, is the removal of the fiscal checks and balances. This is analogous to the situation we had with our national 

parks where we consider adding new parks while the existing ones 

fall in disrepair. I would suggest that you retain the limitation 

until such time that we can remove the budgetary constraints on 

the Sanctuary Program. 

Regarding the fishing regulations, the new mission statement 

does not include sustainable use of sanctuary resources. Clearly, 

the program is being recast to protect rather than use. This represents a fundamental shift. On the west coast, sanctuaries were 

originally conceived to address concerns over oil and gas exploration and development. 

The U.S.S. Monitor was protected for its maritime heritage 

value. Commercial and recreational fishermen and tribal interests 

generally supported establishment of the sanctuaries because they 

were led to believe that their fishing activities and their access 

would be guaranteed. Changing policies for existing sanctuaries is 

a bit of a Trojan Horse. 

Most disappointing to me, quite frankly, is the trawl ban that is 

included in your bill. This amounts to legislating predetermined 

management decisions and circumventing the public process, not to 

mention the scientific process. This is extremely worrisome if you 

consider this provision along with the system expansion goals. 

Madam Chair, I have to tell you now that the opposition to this 

provision from the regulated community from every region cannot 

be overstated. H.R. 6537 will still require that fishing regulations 

be compatible with the new mission. Considering that fact, plus the 

bottom trawl ban, plus the actions to prohibit fishing in Monterey 

and Channel Islands makes it hard for me to envision how any 

sanctuary fishing in the future will be safe. 

In 2005 and 2008, the council chairs adopted a unanimous position to amend the Sanctuary Act to exclude fishing resources as 

sanctuary resources and to achieve the jurisdictional clarity by 

vesting fisheries management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Having served on a council, I agree with that approach. 

It ensures that fishing resources are managed to achieve the 

greatest benefit of the Nation consistent throughout the range and 

with the best available scientific information. Councils are mandated to minimize the impacts of fishing on habitat and can use 

ecosystem-based tools to protect areas, which they are now doing. 

In closing, Madam Chair, I believe the council system is 

equipped to manage and protect fishery and ecosystem resources 

while the Sanctuary Program is not, nor was it ever designed to 

handle such comprehensive and challenging tasks. Congress, and 

38 

in particular this Committee and this Subcommittee, invested 

years of hard work to enhance the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

There is no reason why that should not be the primary tool we 

use to manage our fishing resources. Madam Chair, I thank you, 

Ranking Member Brown and the members of the Subcommittee for 

having me as your guest today. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank you, Mr. Marks. Your comments were 

very helpful, and I will take into consideration some of the suggestions you have made. I hope to be able to continue to work with 

you and other stakeholders to refine and clarify my legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marks follows:] 

Statement of Rick Marks, Hoffman, Silver, Gilman & Blasco, 

Arlington, Virginia 

Introduction 

Madame Chair Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown and distinguished members of 

the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the 

‘‘Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008’’, H.R. 6537. 

I am Rick Marks, a principal at Hoffman, Silver, Gilman & Blasco PC.(HSGB). 

We are the oldest operating law firm in the State of Alaska formerly known as ‘‘Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh’’. We have offices throughout Alaska and Northern Virginia and our clients operate in various marine environments around the nation. 

Prior to joining HSGB, I was appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to serve 

on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and worked as a lead marine fishery biologist for the State of North Carolina. I worked for NOAA/NMFS twice—once 

as a Fishery Reporting Specialist and once as a benthic laboratory and field technician. I participated in the USS Monitor artifact negotiations, and the WWII Mark 

IV Enigma coding machine ownership negotiations with the Federal Republic of 

Germany. I served as the East Coast representative for the National Fisheries Institute and worked for two seasons as a mate on charter fishing vessels. I hold a Masters Degree in Marine Environmental Science with emphasis in Fish Ecology from 

Stony Brook University as well as a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Lynchburg 

College. I currently serve at the pleasure of the NMFS Assistant Administrator on 

four Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act-mandated ‘‘Take Reduction Teams’’ 

(TRTs). 

Since we had just five working days to organize our testimony on H.R. 6537, all 

of our clients did not have time to formally approve this final version. Therefore, 

for the record my comments here today are solely my own. However, please note 

my testimony reflects issues critical to many of my clients and associates around 

the country including several that operate in or near seven existing national marine 

sanctuaries—Olympic Coast, Monterey, Channel Islands, Cordell Banks, Gulf of 

Farallones, Florida Keys and Stellwagen Bank. Recently, you were kind enough to 

receive oversight testimony directly from one of my current clients—Chairman 

Micah McCarty of the Makah Tribe. Where appropriate, my comments will expand 

on those provided by Chairman McCarty. 

Today I will deal with the substantive issues of H.R. 6537. I intend to discuss 

three topics: (1) positive aspects of this legislation; (2) areas of concern; and (3) fisheries regulations. I will also include recommendations along the way that are intended to improve the legislation. 

Strengths of H.R. 6537 

Regarding Section 301(b) I appreciate your efforts to retain some of the core purposes and policies of the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA) including the assurance that we look at areas of the marine environment that are of special national 

significance. The importance of this underlying concept must not be underestimated. 

We should heed this requirement and choose sites wisely or else the program may 

suffer the same problem that initially plagued the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) essential fish habitat designation process—‘‘if everything is essential then nothing is.’’ 

Further along in Section 301(b) I also support the clarification allowing for regulated public and private uses of sanctuary resources. While we may not agree on 

exactly what those uses are and the degree to which they may be exercised, it is 

nonetheless important to our clients that we see this recognition in the policy section and we thank you for that addition. 

39 

We support the Resource Classification, Identification and Inventory specified in 

Section 303 and in particular, the provision at 303(d)(1) which specifies that ‘‘discrete’’ areas of the marine environment be considered for potential designation as 

a sanctuary. This provision maintains consistency with the purposes and policies 

section in 301(b). We recommend a formal, independent peer review be conducted 

of the final site selection list to ensure that areas prioritized for designation are 

unique, discrete marine areas of special national significance. 

We very much appreciate your effort to resolve the fishing regulation conflict in 

Sections 304 and 308 and to have the Regional Councils clearly involved in the process. While we have not reached a resolution with this version of H.R. 6537 I want 

to express sincere thanks to you and your staff for focusing on this issue. I will circle back to this discussion in the part of my testimony addressing fishing regulations. 

In Section 308(b)(5) we recognize and appreciate the cooperation and consultation 

provision, especially for Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. It is critical these interests be afforded the proper government-to-government recognition specified by their 

treaties, embodied in Executive Orders 13158 and 13175, and further clarified in 

case law. 

As noted by Chairman Micah McCarty of the Makah Tribe at your NMSA oversight hearing on June 18th, it is important to recognize that the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) is a special case due to the fact that it is the 

only sanctuary within the combined U&A Areas of four Treaty Tribes. I am disheartened that a tribal consultation provision specific to the OCNMS is not contained in H.R. 6537. I do hope you and your staff will work cooperatively with the 

Makah Tribe and other Northwest Treaty Tribes to provide specific statutory authorization for the existing IPC, moving from an MOA to a binding legal arrangement which specifies co-management opportunities, ensures federal treaty trust responsibility, and clarifies a government-to-government consultation process. 

I also support conceptually the idea of special use permits in Section 310. While 

I retain some concerns about practical implementation and utility, this provision 

does maintain consistency with allowing for regulated public and private use of 

sanctuary resources. We recommend the sanctuary program be required to use the 

best available science in decision making regarding issuance of special use permits. 

Finally, I support your overall program authorization levels for additional appropriations in Section 313 provided those appropriations do not negatively impact 

funding levels for our ongoing fisheries research and management programs which 

you well know are woefully under-funded. 

Areas of Concern 

Section 301(a)(4) indicates that scientific research has confirmed that protected 

areas do a number of wonderful things both inside and outside of the protected 

zones including repopulating adjacent areas. I would be remiss in my scientific duties if I did not point out that there remains significant controversy about these benefits and should be viewed on a sanctuary-specific, case by case basis. Some leading 

scientists (Hilborn and Walters, 2008) suggest that in certain instances, benefits of 

protected areas may not be either extensive or net positive. 

Indeed, the value of MPAs has been shown in tropical areas with more sedentary 

or habitat-specific species, but not in areas with dynamic ocean conditions such as 

the West Coast. It also has not been demonstrated for species that are migratory 

such as whiting, Dover sole, sablefish, Atlantic bluefish, various squids and Atlantic 

mackerel. For other benthic species such as lingcod, time/area closures may work 

equally well in protecting stocks during sensitive spawning or rearing times. 

Dynamic marine environments experience constant input/output of biological, 

physical and chemical components. Being able to maintain total ‘‘ecosystem’’ protection is a fairly broad claim, especially when talking about perceived threats such 

as global climate change. For example, the buildup of atmospheric CO2 has been 

linked to ocean acidification and simply putting areas off-limits to fishing will do 

nothing to address other impacts. 

Citing these uncertainties I also note that the NMSA, even with the proposed 

changes, would still lack a specific requirement that decisions be based on the best 

scientific information with provisions crafted to implement such standards. Currently, it is my sense the sanctuary process often times appears to be more ‘‘policy’’ 

driven than anything else. As a starting point I recommend that clear scientific integrity be required of NMSA decisions using the same standards that apply to MSA 

actions. 

In Section 301(c)(1)(B) of H.R. 6537, Congress would bring marine national monuments under the jurisdiction of the NMSA. This presents a double-edged sword for 

resource use constituencies. Certainly, once an area is designated pursuant to the 

40 

‘‘Antiquities Act’’ (‘‘The Act’’, Chpt.3060; 16 U.S.C. 431) there should be some applicable management and regulatory regime by which the public can gain benefit and 

access to the area. It would appear that the NMSA is the most appropriate statute. 

However, designations pursuant to the Antiquities Act are arguably not achieved 

by way of a scientifically-defensible, public process. If we proactively envelop monuments into the NMSA as is proposed here, do we encourage future designations to 

be done separate from the public process? I believe we may do just that. 

As a justification for my concerns we can look to the much-rumored example of 

the ‘‘Islands in the Stream’’ initiative being supposedly developed by among others, 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the National Ocean Service 

(NOS). If the rumors are true about linking the Flower Garden Banks across the 

Pinnacles to the Florida Keys Sanctuary via monument authority then it is being 

discussed with little or no public process. By proactively allowing the addition of future monument designations to the NMSA we are facilitating the very activities 

that are anathema to what we should be trying to achieve with a transparent, 

science-driven, fiscally-responsible designation process. 

H.R. 6537 contains new requirements to identify and protect maritime heritage 

resources (See Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 310). The term is defined at 

302(a)(14) but then quickly morphs into ‘‘maritime heritage resources areas’’ at 

303(c)(3)(A)(ii) and (C) and (d)(1)(B) without any explanation what the new term 

means or what the implications are for area management. Having worked for years 

in and around the Graveyard of the Atlantic I have a special appreciation for preserving maritime heritage resources but expanding this to an undefined area concept with resource use implications is serious cause for concern and not just for fishermen along North Carolina’s Outer Banks. 

A ‘‘System Expansion Goal’’ provision is incorporated into Section 6 of H.R. 6537 

specifying the Secretary should strive to add the number of sites necessary to incorporate a full range of ecoregions and rare and unique habitats and maritime heritage resource areas before 2030. My concern here is that numerical goals could drive 

what should be a deliberative, scientific, and fiscally-responsible designation process. It may make more sense to remove the numerical target and endeavor to add 

those areas that truly qualify as discrete areas of national significance that we can 

manage effectively. 

Section 7 (Sec. 304) revises the designation procedures and management plan review process. Here, H.R. 6537 reduces (by 6 mos.) the time to publish a notice of 

designation but increases the period of management plan review from 5 to 7 years. 

Furthermore, subsequent management plan reviews are pushed back from once 

every 5 years to only once every 10 years. These changes are counterintuitive for 

managing dynamic marine systems—on the one hand we increase the speed to designate but on the other we delay a review of what we have done. This will effectively reduce government oversight, slow the system’s reaction time to make substantive changes, and possibly dull the effectiveness of the advisory panels. 

Furthermore, the management plan review section appears to require a specific 

review of the impacts of fishing regulations within the sanctuary but would not require the same level of review for any other activity. This is also counterintuitive 

since there are numerous other activities that may impact sanctuary resources. It 

is unclear how controlling fishing activities will protect the health of the entire ecosystem while whale watching, boating, water pollution, air pollution, non-point 

source discharge, marine mammal predation, vessel strikes, ocean acidification, etc., 

are not the subject of similar scrutiny or control. 

H.R. 6537 repeals the limitation on new sanctuary designations and the associated findings requirement. My primary concern here, in addition to the fiscal burden of new designations on previously designated sanctuaries, is the willing removal 

of the checks and balances inherent in the current findings at 16 U.S.C. 1434(f)(1). 

Currently, before he can add a new designation the Secretary must ensure that a 

new designation will not have a negative impact on the system, that he has sufficient resources available in the fiscal year, that he can effectively implement a sanctuary management, and that he can complete an inventory within 10 years at the 

current funding level. 

The existing designation language provides some fiscal responsibility on whether 

the Secretary has adequate funds to administer existing sanctuaries before creating 

new ones. This is analogous to the situation we face in our National Parks, where 

new parks are created while existing ones are falling apart due to the lack of operational capital. My recommendation is to retain the designation limitations until 

such time that we can change the budgetary constraints on the NMSP. 

Section 306 revises the prohibited activities provisions by striking the phrase 

‘‘knowingly and willfully’’ on paragraph (3)(C) regarding submission of false information to the Secretary or any authorized officer. This change lowers the legal standVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:34 Feb 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43709.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
41 

ard to the point that a person could be prosecuted under the full extent of the penalty schedule for making a simple mistake. By all means I support the law being 

applied to the fullest extent possible for determined criminal activity but this new 

standard seems rather excessive for an honest mistake. 

Similarly, increasing the maximum prison sentence (from 6 months to 2 years) and increasing the maximum fine (from $100,000 to $250,000) for violations of the 

Act seem relatively harsh. Changes in the penalty schedule could be warranted 

should the number and scope of NMSA violations be of such serious concern but 

there is no indication from NOS that this is the case. 

Section 309 is amended here to permit the Secretary to withhold certain public 

information to protect sanctuary resources. Subpart (ii) allows the Secretary to further determine who may have access to these data but provides no standard by 

which the Secretary shall make that determination. Active withholding of such information in the context of artifacts discovered within the Olympic Coast Sanctuary 

is inconsistent with the Federal treaty trust responsibilities afforded the four Treaty 

Tribes of Washington State (i.e. Makah, Ho, Quinault, Quileute). The OCNMS is located entirely within the combined Usual & Accustomed Area of these four federally-recognized Tribes and any discoveries of cultural artifacts should be shared 

with them immediately. 

New Section 310 allows the Secretary to issue permits for bottom trawling in 

some cases but then goes on to require conditions and restrictions that make it impossible for an individual fisherman to actually get a permit. Also unclear is whether any fisherman—commercial or recreational—would be required to have a permit 

issued under this section. There should be an explicit statement that fishing allowed 

by regulation would not require a separate Sanctuary permit. I note here that that 

applicable language is found in subsection (g) of the existing NMSA but was omitted 

in H.R. 6537. 

Finally, there is a fundamental change to the provision clarifying how the Act relates to other existing federal laws in Section 301(b)(2). The original NMSA authority complemented existing regulatory authority while the new language appears to 

make existing authority comply with the mission of the sanctuary system. It would 

be helpful if a provision could be added explaining that the Act is not intended to 

override other federal laws dealing with the marine environment but is intended to 

complement them. 

Fisheries Regulations 

Turning to fishery resource management, the proposed NMSA ‘‘mission’’ statement specified at 301(c)(2) is well crafted but does not include any real use of sanctuary resources. Clearly, the system is being redesigned to protect resources (including fish), not utilize them. I note this here because it forms a critical philosophical 

component in the debate over fishing regulations in sanctuaries. 

This new mission statement represents a major fundamental change in the purpose of the Sanctuary system, a change which—had it been in effect prior to the 

designation of existing sanctuaries—would have resulted in different views on establishing them in the first place. For example, on the West Coast, sanctuaries were 

established primarily over concerns about oil exploration and development. The USS 

Monitor was protected off the coast of North Carolina for its maritime heritage 

value. 

Ocean resource users such as commercial and recreational fishermen and tribes 

generally supported establishment of sanctuaries because they were led to believe 

that fishing opportunities and access would be protected. Changing policies for existing sanctuaries is the equivalent of re-zoning property for non-commercial use after 

the owner has already made investments on that property. 

A perfect example of this bait and switch can be seen in the ‘‘Fishing Activities’’ 

portion of the Monterey Bay NMS Final EIS (See NOAA, Vol. II, Part IX, Section 

F; Response to Comments on Draft EIS, Issue 13—Regulation of Fishing, pgs. F41 to F-43, 1992). Regarding the question concerning the prohibition and management of fishing within the sanctuary NOAA responded with the following 

Existing fisheries are not being regulated as part of the Sanctuary regime 

and fishing is not included in the Designation Document as an activity subject to future regulation. Fisheries Management will remain under the existing jurisdiction of the state of California, NMFS and PFMC. 

Similarly, Congressman Sam Farr (D-17th), a well-respected coastal legislator and 

current co-sponsor of H.R. 6537 submitted clarifying correspondence to Mr. William 

Douros, Superintendent of the Monterey Bay NMS (See Farr, 2002) elucidating a 

position similar to NOAA’s on fishing regulations in the sanctuary. Representative 

Farr’s letter contains a section titled ‘‘The Role of the Sanctuary in Regulating Fisheries’’ from which the following quote is taken 

42 

In the process of building support for the designation of the sanctuary, a 

clear commitment was made to the fishing community that the sanctuary 

would not impose any regulations directed at fishing activities or fishing 

vessels. This agreement is based on the understanding that the fisheries 

within the sanctuary are already being regulated and that there is neither 

the necessity nor the resources for the National Marine Sanctuary Program 

to take on this responsibility. The regulation of fishing in the sanctuary 

should remain under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish 

and Game and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Any future reexamination of this relationship should be conducted directly with representatives of the fishing and these agencies. 

Despite these prior promises, designation documents that do not allow the regulation of fishing activities or fishing vessels, and despite a lack of consensus with the 

regulated community—approximately 64% of the Monterey Bay NMS is off limits 

to fishing (Hilborn and Walters, 2008). This year, the sanctuary superintendent announced (as of February 15, 2008) that NOS will proceed with the implementation 

of MPAs in the federal waters of the Monterey Bay NMS. It is our understanding 

that the proposed MPAs would only ban fishing while no other activity would be 

impacted. 

In the nearby Channel Islands, the role of the sanctuary in fishing regulations 

is also being painfully felt by the regulated community. In the document titled ‘‘Our 

National Marine Sanctuaries 2007 Accomplishments Report (NOAA/NOS/NMSP 

2007) the single ‘‘Featured 2007 Accomplishment’’ listed for the entire National 

Marine Sanctuary Program is described as follows 

Marine conservation in U.S. waters increased in July when NOAA expanded protected areas within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The move permanently bans fishing from nearly 111 square miles 

around the Channel Islands, extending a network of marine reserves that 

now make up the largest area of no-fishing zones in the continental United 

States. 

Clearly, the Sanctuary mission has evolved over time by shifting away from protecting discrete marine areas to one geared toward closing large areas to fishing 

under the guise of ‘‘ecosystem management’’ with little in the way of standards, scientific peer review, and transparent public processes. Unfortunately, rather than 

rectify the fishing regulation problem and address the conflict between the M-SA 

and the NMSA, H.R. 6537 appears to make matters worse. 

Perhaps most shocking in all of H.R. 6537 is Section 306(a)(5) which specifies an 

outright ban on ‘‘bottom trawling’’ for any sanctuary designated before January 1, 

2009 unless expressly approved by the Secretary consistent with the sanctuary mission, and a full ban with no exception for any sanctuary designated on or after that 

same date. This amounts to legislating pre-determined management decisions for 

sanctuaries and monuments thereby circumventing the entire public and advisory 

processes. 

Should the trawl ban provision be retained and implemented absent a scientific 

determination process, what would prevent the sanctuary program from prohibiting 

all fishing gear that touches bottom including gear that has even the potential to 

touch the sea floor under the new mission to protect all sanctuary resources? This 

is a very serious issue for all marine fishing constituencies. 

The ban on trawling is particularly galling to the regulated community if you consider its application along with the ‘‘System Expansion Goal’’ specified at Section 

6 and the addition of numerous but undetermined ecoregions and maritime heritage 

areas. I believe the opposition from every region to such a provision cannot be overstated. In the case of the OCNMS the proposed trawl ban would effectively abrogate 

the Tribes’ fishing rights to continue their well-managed, adaptive bottom trawl 

fishery which is the result of transparent co-management efforts between the Tribes 

and the Pacific Council. 

The proposed changes to Section 304 and 308 still require that fishing regulations 

be compatible with the purposes and mission of the sanctuary. Since the new proposed mission of the sanctuary is protection (and not use) of living and non-living 

resources, and based on the evidence of management activities in several sanctuaries that suggest a proactive ratcheting down of fishing activities, it remains unclear how any fishing in a sanctuary is safe under H.R. 6537. 

Furthermore, the new section 308 could put the Regional Councils even further 

behind the process. First, the new section adds timelines that heretofore did not 

exist, effectively forcing the Councils to examine NMSA issues as a priority—possibly at the expense of other more crucial conservation and management issues. If 

it cannot meet the deadlines the Councils lose their ability to managing fisheries 

throughout their range, a requirement of the MSA. Typically, amendments to fishVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:34 Feb 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43709.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

ery management plans take up to two years to complete even when the Council has 

made specific allowances in its strategic planning for that activity. 

In my opinion, the Secretary already has the authority under the MSA to issue 

regulations consistent with the MSA to close certain areas to fishing if it is deemed 

necessary to protect the ecosystem. However, there is still a need to clarify the existing relationship between the NMSA and MSA. 

In 2005 and again in 2008 the Regional Fishery Management Council Chairmen 

adopted unanimous positions to amend the NMSA to specifically exclude fishery resources as sanctuary resources and to achieve jurisdictional clarity by vesting federal fisheries management within the MSA. The House Natural Resources Committee attempted to address this very issue during the 2006 MSA reauthorization 

but Members deferred the debate to the NMSA reauthorization. 

I agree with the position of the Regional Council Chairmen for a number of reasons. First, this approach ensures that fishery resources are managed to achieve the 

greatest benefit the nation, consistently throughout their range, and with the best 

scientific information available. Second, the MSA has very specific National Standards, guidelines, scientific & economic considerations, a complete fishery-specific 

committee structure, and clear requirements for public input that include but extend beyond National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considerations. And third, 

the Councils are mandated to minimize the impacts of fishing gear on fish habitat 

as a component of FMPs and were provided with authority to employ ecosystembased tools to implement area management such as marine protected areas and special limited fishing zones to protect resources (See 16 U.S.C. 303(a)(7) and 303(b). 

The Regional Councils are already incorporating these EFH and ecosystem-based 

concepts into their management plans which would be consistent with the intent of 

the NMSA. There are many examples of this from every region, here are just a 

few—the North Pacific Council operates a full retention trawl program and has set 

aside an expansive deepwater coral protection area. The Pacific Council, through its 

EFH process, has already established discrete areas where bottom contact gear of 

any kind (not just trawls) is prohibited. The Rockfish and Cowcod Conservation 

Areas put thousands of square nautical miles off-limits to fishing. This Council has 

gone one step further and established a committee designed to modify those areas 

based on new information. The Mid-Atlantic Council has implemented trawl Gear 

Restricted Areas and the New England Council closed the heads of several marine 

canyons to trawling for purposes of managing Atlantic monkfish. 

Simply put, the NMFS and the Regional Council system are designed and wellequipped to manage and protect fishery and ecosystem resources using all the tools 

at their disposal (incl. area management concepts) while the NMS system is not, nor 

was it ever intended to handle such a comprehensive task. Fisheries management 

is standard operating procedure for NMFS and the Councils using their resources 

of fishery science and statistical committees and support staff, economists, periodic 

fishery surveys, program monitoring, cooperative research programs, a fleet of federal research vessels, specific data reporting requirements, vessel trip and dealer reporting, permits and licensing activities, specific limited access and allocation methodologies, constituent services and outreach, and other pending programmatic 

changes to overfishing and rebuilding requirements resulting from the 2006 MSA 

reauthorization. 

In sum, the U.S. Congress and this Subcommittee just invested years of hard 

work to substantially improve the MSA by separating politics from quota setting, 

ending overfishing, providing for enhanced habitat management, adding tighter controls on catch limits and accountability, and by specifying clear roles for advice from 

Science and Statistical Committees. In other words, the Councils operate under a 

very comprehensive, conservation-oriented set of requirements pursuant to the 

MSA. They have consistently proven the ability to deal with area management concepts to protect living marine resources in a transparent and science-based manner. 

There is simply no valid reason why this system should not be the primary tool used 

to manage fishery resources in sanctuaries. 

Madame Chair, I thank you and Mr. Brown and the Subcommittee members for 

allowing me to speak with you today regarding the details of H.R. 6537. I hope to 

continue our work with you and your staff during this reauthorization process. 

Literature Cited 

Farr, S. 2002. Letter to Mr. William Duoros, MBNMS Superintendent (cc’d to Mr. 

Dan Basta), dated January 31, 2002; 4 pages. 

Hilborn, R and C. Walters, 2008. Ecosystem Consequences of MPAs for the 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; 24 pages. 

44 

NOAA, 1992. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Volume II, Part IX, Section F; Responses to Comments on 

Draft EIS, Issue 13—Regulation of Fishing. Pages F-41 to F-43. 

NOAA/NOS/NMSP, 2007. Our National Marine Sanctuaries 2007 Accomplishments 

Report; 7 pages. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I will now recognize members for any questions 

they may wish to ask the witnesses alternating between the members and allowing five minutes for each member. Should members 

need more time, we very well could have a second round of questions. I will begin with myself, and I do have some for Mr. 

Dunnigan of NOAA. 

According to your testimony, NOAA’s priorities for reauthorization of the Sanctuaries Act are: 1] to clarify the protective mission 

of the system; 2] streamline the processes for identifying, selecting 

and designating new sanctuaries; and 3] ensure that NOAA’s authorities under the Act are applicable for NOAA’s management responsibilities at marine national monuments. Does H.R. 6537 address these priorities? Just a yes or a no. 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It addresses 

those priorities. As I said, we haven’t had a chance to review all 

of the details, but it at least goes in those directions. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you. I have a series of questions, 

so. Will the President’s recent action to lift the administrative moratorium on offshore energy production affect the system, and is this 

action by the President consistent with the NMSA, and how might 

this affect the marine national monument in Hawaii in the Pacific 

Ocean? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. The 

President, when he lifted that moratorium continued its applicability to national marine sanctuaries. So the system is still operational there. Specifically with reference to Papahanaumokuakea, 

the President, when he designated that monument prohibited oil 

drilling activities. So our understanding is that that remains in 

place as well. 

So we think that the President’s action doesn’t have any direct 

impact on the sanctuary system. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. All right, another question. H.R. 6537 

would enact several systemwide statutory prohibitions for certain 

activities for existing and future sanctuaries. What is NOAA’s position on this provision of the bill, and if NOAA does object, please 

explain why these activities that are prohibited in national parks 

should be allowed in national marine sanctuaries? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Well, again, I think, reserving the opportunity to 

look at the specific language, we believe that the better approach 

is to look at each of the sanctuaries in its particular context and 

then craft the appropriate regulatory scheme that is best applied 

to that particular area. So in general we would prefer not to see 

broad prohibitions that apply across the board to a lot of different 

areas. 

We think this program works best when the prohibitions can be 

tailored to the needs of the particular area. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Each sanctuary. Does NOAA support a requirement to conduct an inventory of marine ecoregions and maritime 

45 

heritage resources and to develop a new site selection list for potential designations of new sanctuaries? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. We think that it is time for us to have an opportunity to consider broadly the needs of the system and that is one 

way of doing it, so that is consistent with that provision that was 

in our testimony. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. I have two other questions. Does NOAA 

support having a goal to expand the system to include representative sites of each marine ecoregion and a full range of maritime 

heritage resources by the year 2030? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. We don’t have a position specifically on that particular part of the bill, but let me say that one of the things we 

have to be careful to consider here is that the resources that we 

have available to protect these places are consistent with the requirements that we are laying on ourselves. 

So one of the things we have to think about is are we going to 

be able to continue to maintain the protections for the whole system as we try to move forward and provide broad protection for all 

these types of resources around the country? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. My final question. The bill would authorize an annual funding level of $100 million by 2013 for implementing the NMSA and for construction projects. Now, does NOAA 

feel that this amount is sufficient given the projected growth of the 

system in that timeframe? I expect the answer to be no. 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. I think the answer that the administration always has for these kinds of questions is that as we work out appropriations bills we have to evaluate every year what the requirements are against all of the other requirements that the country 

faces and provide the appropriate funding. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So you don’t feel the $100 million would be 

sufficient? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. No, I didn’t say that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. Now to Mr. Gudes. I want 

to thank you for your discussion regarding how the proposed mission statement could be amended to better preserve recreational 

opportunities. Why do you believe, however, that an explicit mission to require NOAA to manage the sanctuary system for the longterm protection and conservation of the resources would result in 

a loss of recreational activities or opportunities? 

Mr. GUDES. I suppose there is probably two questions. One is if 

what the bill is doing is saying what is the purpose, what is the 

mission for what a marine sanctuary is, if, in fact, human use, people use of the sanctuary, it would make sense to have that in the 

statement, just in the same way some other parks, for example, national parks have it in. 

Second, I think I am mindful of Rick Marks comments that if you 

look at the history of the Marine Sanctuary Program, designations 

have started and then over time restrictions have been put in place 

that were not contemplated by the stakeholders when they supported the designation of the sanctuary. 

Those are all human uses that I am talking about, and I can 

point to a number of those, but I think Rick was talking in terms 

of commercial fishing. I can point out the use of personal 

watercraft on the west coast, I can point out the no takes zones 

46 

have been put in place. It is not clear to me that when those things 

came into effect that stakeholders at all knew that was what they 

were agreeing to. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Is that not covered through the management 

plan reviews at this—— 

Mr. GUDES. The uses do come about through the management 

plan review, and in each case at some point the people who are 

most involved in a sanctuary have put forward a proposal that 

often is advertised in the local media for stakeholders to come forward. It doesn’t mean that all the members of the public who are 

affected understand that each time it happens. 

Usually they find out that they should have been involved earlier 

or might have been involved earlier when a restriction comes into 

place. I can tell you coming into this industry I am aware of restrictions that came into place that had the industry known when 

they were first proposed, it would have come forward forcefully and 

not agreed. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Well, I will have a few additional questions but right now I would like to recognize the gentleman from 

New Jersey, Mr. Saxton. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Dunnigan 

and Ms. Spruill, I am sure you were listening as intently as I was 

to the concerns, if you will, that were raised by Mr. Gudes and Mr. 

Marks about the bill. I noted three in particular that I would like 

to ask you to express your views on. 

First is, as pointed out by Mr. Marks, there is a general acceptance of the notion that scientific information should be used as a 

basis for our policy rather than policy being a goal all of its own. 

Mr. Marks is concerned that the integrity of the scientific approach 

be maintained. That is number one. Second, that as the bill is currently written it may be biased, my word, in terms of expansion 

rather than maintaining and managing the current system. 

Third, that there is an emphasis on protection rather than use. 

I think that Mr. Gudes at least contributed to the last part in 

terms of the opportunities for fishing and so on, so if you could just 

have a conversation with us about your perspective on those three 

areas. 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I would be 

pleased to address those. I think, first of all, we recognize that national marine sanctuaries present one of the really great opportunities for doing important scientific research in the oceans. They are 

identified on the basis of particular values that each of the sanctuaries represents. 

It is important to understand how global processes, climate 

change and other things that are happening affect these places and 

what we can learn from that for application elsewhere. So we believe in a strong scientific base for the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program, and we believe that science, and good science, the best 

available science, needs to underpin the actions that we take. 

We also believe that that science is a part of what is brought out 

in the public discussion processes that we have when we consider 

regulations, when we do designation documents. So we feel we 

have a fairly open process, we believe that we are reflecting the 

47 

best available science and we don’t have any difficulty with that 

being an underpinning for the program. 

I think there is a focus in our position from the administration’s 

standpoint on clarifying that the particular requirements for sanctuaries are more focused on protection and conservation than they 

are on management. We are not necessarily here just to manage 

resources in the same sense that we manage fisheries to try to 

achieve an optimum yield. 

There is an identification that these are special places that deserve the kind of conversation and protection, but, again, sometimes we get the impression that people are thinking that we generate all of this in our offices in Silver Spring without having an 

opportunity to sit and spend a lot of time with stakeholders. 

If you hear the comments that you have heard from the Thunder 

Bay folks, including the mayor who was here at the last hearing, 

you hear people talking about how the Sanctuary Program was 

something that once they got to understand it and the values that 

it protected in their local areas, that it was important to move forward with. 

The third thing I would say about fishing is that in the 12 national marine sanctuaries that we have, leaving 

Papahanaumokuakea off for the moment because that was the 

President’s action, in the 12 sanctuaries we have, we allow fishing 

in every one of them. We allow commercial fishing, I believe, to 

some extent in every one of them. 

So if you were to go out to the Channel Island Sanctuary that 

is in Ms. Capps’ district, you would see a series of panels on the 

wall of the office that says uses of marine sanctuaries. We have 

recognized from the beginning that national marine sanctuaries are 

special places for people. 

Although we believe the principal focus needs to be on conservation and protection, we recognize that these are valuable places for 

people to use as well. 

Ms. SPRUILL. Thank you, Congressman, for your very thoughtful 

questions. I concur, I have to, with Jack that science must absolutely anchor all decisions related to sanctuary designation. I think 

we have to recognize that America’s future depends on the health 

and productivity of our oceans. 

This bill, therefore, makes it really clear that the primary purpose of the sanctuary system is the long-term protection and conservation of ocean resources. Now, that said, we also understand 

that fishermen are facing a number of challenges from diminishing 

fish populations and rising fuel costs, and we see the sanctuary 

system providing us with an opportunity to really invest in the future of a healthier ocean, and therefore, all the livelihoods that depend on that ocean. 

As Jack said, we can’t forget that every single sanctuary is open 

to fishing and the vast majority of the waters within those sanctuaries are open to fishing, and at the same time we have to acknowledge that fishing is one of the greatest impacts to ocean ecosystems. So I like to look at sanctuaries as sort of an insurance policy for both the future health of the ocean and its productivity and 

the livelihoods that depend on it. 

48 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Saxton. Now the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Capps. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. NOAA seems 

to be on the hot seat for questions. Right off the back this morning, 

Mr. Dunnigan, I am going to start out with questions for you. I 

heard you say something about a second round so if I don’t get to 

it, I have a couple of other people I want to pick on as well. 

To continue, Mr. Dunnigan, the conversation or testimony that 

has already occurred on fishing, I want to ask your opinion about 

the National Marine Sanctuary Program and expertise in fishing 

management. Do you believe that the sanctuaries have the kind of 

expertise in fishing management to make decisions on fishing 

issues within their boundaries? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Well, I have two answers to that question. First 

of all, I think we have an immensely capable staff that has broad 

capacity and capability to deal with a wide range of ocean issues, 

including those relating to living resources. The other thing I would 

like to say is that this is a NOAA program, so the National Marine 

Sanctuary’s office is also working closely with the offices of the National Marine Fishery Service and of the regional fishery management councils. 

In many cases we have excellent working relationships with the 

regional fishery management councils on a continuing basis. So 

from the NOAA perspective, we believe that we have the opportunity to bring a number of resources and capabilities together to 

try to address these issues. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. You mentioned already my, not mine, but 

our Channel Island Marine Sanctuary, and I know this to be the 

case. We have evidence of that in our sanctuary as well. 

Other witnesses have testified, Mr. Dunnigan, that a provision in 

H.R. 6537 to increase the period of management plan review from 

five to seven years or to require subsequent reviews every 10 years 

instead of every five years, that this provision would reduce oversight and slow down the process to make changes to plans. 

There is another side to it, too, I believe. I want to ask you if 

expanding the period of review would make the process more inefficient. 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Ms. Capps, I would not say that it would make 

the process more inefficient. I think right now one of the problems 

that we are having is that the amount of work that gets associated 

with doing each of these is sufficient enough that it is hard for us 

to be able to get to it all. 

So, actually, if the law gets written in a way that requires us to 

do it at least every so many years, then we have an opportunity 

in the interim times to be able to deal with particular issues as 

they come up, and yet, give us an opportunity to schedule these in 

a way that are consistent with the resources that we have available. 

Ms. CAPPS. Since we have in our sanctuary completed that five 

year plan, it is strenuous and I know from personal experience 

what you are talking about. To follow-up, what else could be done, 

49 

do you believe, to make management plan review process more efficient? Do you have other ideas that we could include? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. We are looking at a number of things and we 

have been talking to the Committee staff about them. Until we get 

an approved view officially from the administration, it is hard to 

say what those might be. One of the things that we think is extremely important is to continue the strong engagement with the 

public through our advisory councils. 

As you saw in the process in the Channel Islands, it was open, 

it gave us an opportunity to talk not only with the industry, but 

also with the state. Especially in the four California sanctuaries 

where we have such a close alignment with the state itself, it gives 

us that opportunity to work together. 

Ms. CAPPS. One more. I think I have time. At the Channel Islands, as you referred to this, the SAC has utilized issue specific 

working groups to improve the public process. They also help keep 

the SAC updated on emerging issues, almost like to anticipate 

problems, some of these being aquaculture and offshore renewable 

energy. 

I have seen personally that these have been very helpful. You 

suggest removing the 15 member limit on certain advisory SACs. 

I know that at the Channel Islands and Monterey Bay sanctuaries 

we each have 20 members each. Why do you think this change 

might be useful or necessary? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. As we move forward with these, we have to make 

sure that we have the opportunity to get the diverse representation 

that is appropriate for that particular sanctuary. The kinds of people that we need are different in California than they are in the 

Great Lakes or than they are in the south Atlantic where we have 

the Grays Reef National Marine Sanctuary. 

So we would like to have the opportunity to be able to have sufficient size on those advisory councils so that we can reach out 

through the board diversity of interests in each case. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. Madam Chair, I want to question a couple more witnesses but I notice the red light is on and I am going 

to take you at your word about a second round. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I want to assure the gentlelady from 

California that we will have a second round of questions. At this 

time I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Brown 

from South Carolina, for any questions he may have. 

Those standing in the back there, if you would like to sit around 

this table here, you are more than welcome. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Welcome. Ms. Spruill, are you from South Carolina? 

Ms. SPRUILL. I am not from South Carolina. 

Mr. BROWN. I want to let you know that in my district we have 

Spruill Avenue. 

Ms. SPRUILL. We do. And there is a Pointer and Spruill law firm, 

too. 

Mr. BROWN. Is that right? 

Ms. SPRUILL. Yes. No relation. 

Mr. BROWN. OK. OK. Let me begin my questioning I guess with 

you. Does your organization support the ban on oil and gas explorations and development in all sanctuaries? 

Ms. SPRUILL. I am sorry, could you repeat the question? 

50 

Mr. BROWN. Does your organization support the ban on oil and 

gas explorations and development in all of the sanctuaries? 

Ms. SPRUILL. Yes, and we at the same time recognize that, you 

know, we all feel the pain at the pump. Congress has to be focused 

on a real solution. Drilling our way out of this one we don’t think 

is the solution. Lifting the moratorium will do nothing to lower today’s gas prices, especially when there are faster, and cheaper, and 

safer plans in investing in clean, renewable energy, like solar, and 

wind, and alternatives to gas. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Would you come closer to the mic, please? 

Ms. SPRUILL. I am sorry. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Ms. SPRUILL. We need to move this between us. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Would you further maybe explain that as why you 

would be against it? 

Ms. SPRUILL. Against drilling in the sanctuaries is how I understood the—— 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, ma’am, that is right. 

Ms. SPRUILL. Because the—— 

Mr. BROWN. Is it environmental concerns or what would be your 

major concern? 

Ms. SPRUILL. Well, we are dealing with a vulnerable ocean ecosystem that is facing threats from a number of sources. It is an already vulnerable system that we need to be as resilient as possible 

to sustain life on this planet. You know, things like pollution, and 

habitat destruction and overfishing are already creating a vulnerable ocean ecosystem. 

So it is not just the drilling we have to be concerned with, it is 

the whole system, the whole process from extraction to transportation. When you are looking at things through an ecosystem lens, 

which this sanctuary act is trying to do, we have to look at the sort 

of cumulative impact of all of these stressors. So it is more than 

just environment. I think that it is a combination. 

Mr. BROWN. OK, but aren’t you aware that other countries are 

drilling offshore, and even in the United States off the coast of Louisiana, off the coast of Texas and off the coast of California we are 

drilling? I think the track record has been pretty good. 

Ms. SPRUILL. Well, again, it is we have to look beyond the drilling. It is not just about the drilling, it is the whole system from 

extraction to transportation. Look at the spill in Louisiana just yesterday. 

Mr. BROWN. That was transportation, right? 

Ms. SPRUILL. Right. 

Mr. BROWN. Right. So then you would be in favor of closing the 

sanctuaries for transportation of tankers across the sanctuaries? 

Ms. SPRUILL. No. I was responding specifically to your drilling 

question. 

Mr. BROWN. I know, but I was responding to your question about 

the barge that—— 

Ms. SPRUILL. If you look at drilling, when we look at oil drilling, 

I think we have to look at the whole system. What we are talking 

about is an ecosystem-based approach to managing our oceans. The 

sanctuaries bill, you know, makes it clear that the primary purpose 

51 

of the sanctuary system is the long-term protection and conservation of our ocean ecosystems and resources. 

It may be that there are some uses that are not compatible with 

that long-term comprehensive view, but we have to consider sanctuaries as an insurance policy. We have to invest in the health and 

future of our oceans because otherwise, the lives that depend on 

those are lost anyway. 

Mr. BROWN. I guess that is the big argument we have today with 

the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon and, you know, the very poorest 

of our country, they are suffering the most because most of those 

people live outside of the region where they have jobs and they 

have to transport back and forth on a daily basis. I know it is hurting in my district. That is the reason. 

I guess my next question would be then does your organization 

support the designation of a monument off the coast of South Carolina? 

Ms. SPRUILL. I have not been briefed on that specific question 

and so I would need to get back to you with a specific answer to 

that. 

Mr. BROWN. OK. Is there any place outside the monuments or 

the sanctuaries where it would be OK to drill? 

Ms. SPRUILL. We think we are not going to drill ourselves out of 

this problem. We need to look for alternative energy sources. 

Mr. BROWN. OK, but in the meantime, I think we are looking, 

you know, for alternative sources, and, you know, windmills and 

whatever else is out there, nuclear power, and hydrogen power, 

and whatever else, but we are using 21 million barrels of oil a day 

and we are getting in some 13 million barrels from people that 

don’t like us and the price keeps going up every day. 

We are having the greatest transfer of wealth in this world today 

than we have ever had before where some $700 billion a year is 

transferred from the wealth of the United States to these countries 

that supply our oil. 

You know, I see that we live on the same planet where everybody 

has got something, a mutual responsibility, and yet, we are insisting almost that Iraq and some of these other places continue to 

drill and we don’t want to share in that level of responsibility. 

Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry I used up all my 

time, too, but it has been a good exchange. 

Ms. SPRUILL. Thank you, Congressman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much to the Ranking Member, 

the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Brown. 

Mr. Marks, I have a few questions for you. You raised rather 

strong concerns about the establishment of marine protected areas, 

including marine reserves, in some sanctuaries that were established to protect sanctuary resources from fishing activities, yet, 

you go on to note several examples where regional fishery management councils have utilized the same tools to the same effect. 

So as a general principle, you are not opposed to the use of 

marine protected areas or even the use of marine reserves, is that 

correct? 

Mr. MARKS. As a general principle, you are correct, I am not opposed to those. What I am concerned about, Madam Chair, is to imVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:34 Feb 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43709.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
52 

plement those in situations where the designation documents did 

not indicate that they could be used to curtail fishing. 

The council process has a very scientifically driven, clear, transparent process to implement those protected areas, and the councils are actively doing that all around the country, but they are 

science-driven, and that is what I would support and that is what 

my clients operate in. 

These other issues about marine protected areas within these 

sanctuaries were not what many people had anticipated when the 

system was brought about. It gets a lot to the issue of science, 

ma’am. 

If you listen to Mr. Dunnigan’s answer to the question about 

science, he is very skillful in the response because, yes, the sanctuaries can be used to do a very good science on climate research, 

et cetera, but when we talk about science, we mean to apply that 

to the fishery management decisions, to the marine protected area 

decisions. 

That is very different than doing scientific research. So you are 

correct, I do support the concept of those MPAs, but I support a 

process that determines that they are necessary. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Now, your concern is more about who 

controls the process, is that correct? They are under the same department, am I, Department of Commerce? 

Mr. MARKS. You are absolutely correct, so what we do have is 

competing departments, ma’am, but there is something very, very 

important I need you to understand because we haven’t been able 

to get to the kernel of why this is a problem. 

The problem is you have two acts that are in conflict because, 

and I think someone may have pointed it out, one, we talk about 

optimum yield, managing use, greatest benefit to the nation, actually having people harvesting for protein for all of us. The other act 

in the same area is now being recast to be more protectionary and 

that is why we have the rub, and that is why I am advocating that 

consistent with Magnuson, throughout the range, species are managed that way. 

The sanctuaries should certainly be able to work in consultation 

with the National Fishery Service. If there are areas that need to 

have MPAs in them, then let us use the science process and the 

council process to put those in wherever they are required. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right, but under existing law and my particular bill, the councils would still have the primary responsibility 

for drafting fishing regulations, so what is the problem? 

Mr. MARKS. Well, they still would, ma’am, but there is a couple 

of things. Number one is you change the timeframes on the council 

to be able to act, and, quite frankly, you tighten them up a bit faster than the council system normally operates. 

As I indicated, you, having been a council member before, I know 

how, I was going to say how fast, but how slow sometimes the 

council process grinds forward because it is so comprehensive, so 

what you have done is you have tightened up the timeframes for 

them to act. 

Not only is it problematic from a time perspective, but what if 

the council has so many other issues that are pressing on them 

from a fiscal standpoint and from a planning standpoint that if the 

53 

sanctuary turns around and says we need regulations today in this 

sanctuary, then the council is going to be forced to drop everything 

else on its agenda that it plans for a year in advance, ma’am, in 

order to be able to react. 

If they can’t react in time, then it defaults to Mr. Dunnigan to 

do the fishing regulations. As I indicated, we have no scientific 

process to depend on. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Then the Committee would be interested to know what kind of timeline are you looking at here, I 

mean, to be reasonable? 

Mr. MARKS. OK. That is a fair question keeping in mind, though, 

that I am still putting my chips with the council. To answer your 

time question, you know, councils typically for a full-blown amendment, when a council has already planned it in their structure to 

get to an amendment it takes upwards of about two years to do a 

full-blown fishery management plan amendment. 

If you want to do a faster plan amendment, called a framework 

amendment, you can actually do that and probably get it off the 

dime in about a year and a half. There are so many requirements, 

NEPA, et cetera, that it takes a long time to make that happen. 

So I think, and, again, I only had a few days with your bill, 

ma’am, but I think that your bill would allow the council, if you 

told them today, six months to finish their work and they could extend that time period once for three months, if I am correct. The 

staff is nodding his head. 

That is not enough time for the councils to do what they would 

have to do, not even talking about still the conflict between the two 

statutes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. I have another question for you, Mr. 

Marks. 

You raise significant concerns that the sanctuary system has 

evolved to a more protective ecosystem management approach with 

little in the way of standard scientific peer-review and transparent 

public process, yet, in looking at the record at the establishment of 

the system of marine reserves at the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, where is that list, I see a very comprehensive 

public process that included over 44 sanctuary advisory councils or 

working group meetings and other public meetings or hearings, 

and this was just for the period between 1999 and 2001. 

Forty-four. So I would say that is pretty thorough. Furthermore, 

the full process took eight years to complete and still left 78 percent of sanctuary waters open to fishing activities. So just exactly 

how much public process do you believe is necessary before NOAA 

is allowed to take a management action in a marine sanctuary? 

Mr. MARKS. Fair question, Madam Chair, and I don’t denigrate 

the public process that has gone on to implement these sanctuaries. 

To designate them and implement I know it takes a long time, I 

know there is tremendous amounts of discussions. 

My issues tend to be not so much with actually where you draw 

the box on the nautical chart, but then what happens from the designation document standpoint moving forward? That is where a lot 

of my concerns and a lot of my clients’ and my associates have 

raised concerns is that there tends to be a feeling that the advisory 

54 

process is being dictated to rather than more involved in the actual 

implementation of regulations, and there is a difference. 

You mentioned the Channel Islands. I have been on a commercial squid boat in the Channel Islands, it is a beautiful place, I 

have kayaked there, people are using it, I do understand we are 

fishing, but let me give you an example just right near there. The 

designation documents for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary were clear, 

and Mr. Farr was clear very far back in the initiation of that, that 

we wouldn’t manage fishing. 

Well, right now, 64 percent of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary is estimated to be off limits to fishing when people didn’t think that 

that was going to happen at all in the beginning. So there is public 

process, you are absolutely right; however, in certain instances 

there is concerns about whether there is enough of it and whether 

the standards and the science apply. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Marks. My time is over and I am 

going to be recognized Mr. Wittman. I would like to ask Mr. 

Dunnigan one quick question. Mr. Marks describes the two statutes, meaning Magnuson and the Sanctuaries Act, are being in 

conflict. Do you share his idea on that? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. No, ma’am, we don’t share that view at all. We 

think that there are two statutes that can work together, and, in 

fact, in almost all cases, do work together well. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That complement each other. All right. Thank 

you. Now the Chair recognizes Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the 

time. I would first like to welcome Timothy Sullivan, the Director 

and CEO of the Mariners’ Museum. Prior to joining the Mariners’ 

Museum, Mr. Sullivan also served as President of the College of 

William and Mary for 13 years. 

The Mariners’ Museum is located in Newport News, Virginia, 

and for those who don’t know, the Mariners’ Museum does a great 

job of displaying and interpreting maritime history, and most notably, the history of the great Civil War naval battle between the 

ironclads U.S.S. Monitor and C.S.S. Virginia. So, Mr. Sullivan, 

thank you for joining us today. I appreciate that. It is good to have 

you here. 

I would like to begin with Mr. Dunnigan with a question. Mr. 

Dunnigan, as you know, anglers play a very important role in the 

conservation of our marine resources and namely through the license fees and excise taxes that they pay on fishing tackle. 

However, I know that many recreational anglers are concerned 

about management practices that might restrict public access and 

the implementation of no take areas. How does the administration 

plan to proceed with the establishment and management of marine 

protected areas and other management measures, and how will 

public access for recreational purposes be ensured? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. If I can answer the second part of your question 

first, the correct process for ensuring the appropriate use of a 

marine protected area, or a sanctuary, or any other area, is really 

through a broad public process that gives transparency and gives 

folks an opportunity through some regularized review to be able to 

have their views heard. 

55 

We recognize that recreational fishing is an important value for 

America, we recognize that the sport fishing community has been 

among the strongest supporters of good fisheries management and 

of good environmental protection, so we think that the right way 

to do that is to focus specifically on the process. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. As related to the process, how do you 

see the application of science playing in, both the process of public 

hearing and in the decisionmaking side? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Well, we begin with our own scientists in the 

sanctuary program that are associated with each of the individual 

sanctuaries, and they have extensive collaborations with other scientists in NOAA, specifically the National Marine Fisheries Service, we work with scientists that work for the regional fishery councils, for other Federal agencies and for the states. 

We have a strong recognition of the collaborative effort that we 

need to do and recognize the capabilities of the states. So we really 

begin with science when we are building our record and trying to 

make a decision as to what the appropriate things to do in a particular sanctuary might be. 

Mr. WITTMAN. So what you will be doing is integrating the public 

information or the public process and the information you gain 

there, along with the science that you gain from your scientists, 

others, and other Federal agencies in the states? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Sir, I would say that, but I would also point out 

that an important part of a program like this is to make sure that 

we are communicating the science through effective public education and outreach programs. 

Public education and outreach is one of the strongest 

underpinnings of the National Marine Sanctuary System, so we 

need to be able to use these programs to take the opportunity to 

get that science into the hands of the people whose resources these 

are so that they can consider what the appropriate uses and protections that are necessary for these places should be. 

Mr. WITTMAN. OK. Like to drill down a little bit further into the 

decisionmaking process. Can you tell us how fisheries management 

or the fisheries management provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act mesh with the requirements of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and how would H.R. 6537 change authorities in the 

Sanctuaries Act? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Under the current law, and I believe under 

H.R. 6537, the principal responsibility initially for crafting individual fishery regulations rests with the fishery management councils. I haven’t studied all of the details, but, as I understand it, 

H.R. 6537 I think makes that process a little bit clearer as to how 

that is supposed to happen and stages it better. 

You know, that process is going to work well when we have the 

sanctuary staffs, the fishery staff and the council staff all working 

together much earlier in the process. This should not be a situation 

where the sanctuaries program decides that it needs a fishing regulation and calls up the fishery council and says come back in 90 

days. 

We have to have that collaboration working from the very beginning. Sanctuary designation processes take many years as well, 

along with fishery management processes, and it is our responsiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:34 Feb 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43709.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
56 

bility to make sure that we have them working side by side all the 

way through. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Just one other question. Maybe a little more 

elaboration. I know that the Magnuson-Stevens Act has a fairly 

proscriptive process for making decisions. Do you see that meshing 

with the process with the Marine Sanctuaries Act? Do you see it 

occurring separately? How do you envision that? Let us say that 

there is a decision process that has been gone through say with a 

species, and then there is an effort to put in place a marine sanctuary. 

How do you see that process either meshing or reconciling if 

there is a potential conflict in that decisionmaking? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. For about the last 18 months we have been doing 

a very detailed analysis of the legal requirements of the two processes and how they work together. That is almost completed and 

ready to be shared. And so that will give, you know, the sort of I 

think very technical details from the legal standpoint that you are 

looking for. 

Let me give you just an example because this is an area where 

we have really tried to do a better job over the last couple of years 

to have the sanctuary staffs and the fishery management staffs in 

NOAA and the councils, you know, working better together. The 

Chairman of the Sanctuary Advisory Council for the Grays Reef 

Sanctuary is an employee of the National Marine Fishery Service. 

The director of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

staff used to work for the National Marine Fishery Service, as did 

I. So what we have been seeing is a much greater sense of collaboration across NOAA really in this administration on programs, and 

that is something that we can’t ever say is done. We have to keep 

working to make that more effective. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Wittman. Now the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Capps. 

Ms. CAPPS. Madam Chair, I do have questions for Mr. Kroll and 

Mr. Marks, but I want to give Mr. Dunnigan a chance to respond, 

I know you have been talking a lot, but you engaged Mr. Marks, 

Madam Chair, in an interesting conversation in which I believe I 

heard Mr. Marks suggest that the sanctuary program does not engage in public processes that are science-based or transparent. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Dunnigan, for a brief response to my 

question. What happens when decisions are made after the designation process is completed? How does the public participate in 

those instances? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Well, on a continuing basis people are participating through the sanctuary advisory council process, and that is 

open. We have continuing membership infusion so that we get a 

broad view of interests. The advisory council process is very engaged and continuing to review how the sanctuaries are being implemented, so there is open discussion. 

I can tell you that they are not all meetings where everybody sits 

around a table and agrees with each other. Those are a lot of fun 

sometimes. I can tell you that at my level I hear from those people 

57 

after those meetings are over with. So, you know, I spent 25 years 

in the fishery management process. They are hard. 

I recognize the hard work that my colleagues in fisheries do, and 

I am committed, and we are all committed in NOAA to working 

better together. 

Ms. CAPPS. I want to tell you and just make this as an aside, the 

process I watched firsthand at Channel Islands, and I have 

bragged about that advisory committee to almost every other public/private partnership that I have ever witnessed, it was the one, 

and I won’t say bloody, but it was a very hands on and strongly 

held opinions where they sat around the table until they ironed out 

every one of the areas where they could agree on. 

One of the most publicly driven processes I have ever experienced. It was initiated by the recreational fisheries. Completely 

driven by science all the way through. I think it is, at least my experience, a very remarkable process. 

Now, Mr. Kroll. I have never had the privilege of visiting your 

Thunder Bay Sanctuary. The pictures are beautiful. Last weekend 

I was at Monterey Bay Sanctuary Visitors Center in Cambria, California, my district, celebrating a second anniversary. I am always 

impressed by the number of businesses from my area and the surrounding around the sanctuary that support it. 

The sanctuary has developed amazing partnerships with local 

lighthouse and maritime-related associations all to enhance tourism, which they can tell you it has. I am sure the Thunder Bay 

Sanctuary has had some positive impacts on your area as well. 

Just mention a couple of those in a brief response. I want to follow 

it up with another question. 

Mr. KROLL. Well, the diving community certainly appreciates the 

efforts of the sanctuary in buoying wrecks in such a way that they 

are a little bit safer to dive on, and it is a little bit more reliable 

and not harmful to the wreck by not attaching to them, so I think 

we are getting a better feel for that. 

As we progress buoying different wrecks and making that available, it makes for a much safer environment to dive in, and so we 

are getting more divers coming to the area. The sanctuary itself, 

having the Maritime Heritage Center now, which has just opened, 

is drawing nondiving community to the area. 

It is amazing the number of people that we have coming through. 

I mean, it is more than we could have possibly anticipated. The 

whole sanctuaries program for our area has been just an amazing 

effort of cooperation between government, private people and everything to get this thing motivated and going. It is just, you know, 

a tenfold kind of thing that is going on as far as the use. 

The educational ramifications of our sanctuary just amazes me. 

We have had Dr. Ballard there doing some research, and we put 

things together with, you know, live broadcasts and that kind of 

thing. 

Ms. CAPPS. Can I get you to segue to a part of this that I find 

very fascinating? You have spent a lot of time there and you represent it well, some of the changes in our Great Lakes in terms of 

invasive species. Have you observed this change over time, and is 

that a part of this educational process you are describing as well? 

58 

Mr. KROLL. Yeah. This is kind of a good thing, bad thing. You 

know, we have 185, I believe, invasive species that have come into 

the Great Lakes since we have opened the canal. Some of those 

things maybe are good, some of those things are bad. I don’t know 

if we understand all that yet. 

Good thing I guess is that the visibility in our Great Lakes has 

greatly increased. What ramifications that has as far as warming 

the waters or whatever has yet to be studied. Bad thing about a 

lot of it, which are the zebra and quagga mussels, are that they 

manifest themselves by covering up the wrecks. 

Even though these pictures show wrecks, which are, from a distance they look really great, some of the artifacts are covered up 

by these mussels and in some ways it is not as good, but when you 

get down there and you have 100 feet of visibility, where back in 

the 1960s when I dove these wrecks we were lucky to have four 

and five feet of visibility, those were considered good days. 

Now, if you have less than 30, you are complaining about it. So 

there are pros and cons to all that. Where it is going to go, to some 

degree we can’t control anymore, but certainly studying their effects is important. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. Madam Chair, I know my red light has 

gone on, but since I am the last speaker, could I ask Mr. Marks 

one question? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Go ahead. 

Ms. CAPPS. Do you mind? I just wanted to refer in your testimony, Mr. Marks, to the statement that you made that scientists 

seem to be split on spill over as a benefit of marine reserves, but 

anecdotally, I can tell you right off Santa Barbara, Channel Islands 

National Park, we see anecdotally every day fishers fishing the 

line. 

They know exactly the sanctuary line ends because they can see 

the number of fish returning and it is providing a much better 

catch with them. Why should not this be considered a positive affect of marine research? 

Mr. MARKS. Let me clarify, Ms. Capps. I didn’t mean to indicate 

that it never works. As a fifth year biologist myself having worked 

in fisheries, I just wanted to make sure that it was clear in my 

written testimony that people understood that there is a lot of debate still ongoing about the positive benefits of some of these areas. 

That is only the point that I was trying to make. I certainly 

would think in some areas with species that are more ventrically 

oriented or structure oriented where their larvae are retained, I 

would certainly agree with you that in some of those instances it 

would work. Whether it repopulates adjacent areas in all cases, 

there is a lot of that that depends on particular case by case situations. 

So in some instances, I think you are absolutely right, in others, 

I am not convinced and others in the scientific community. I just 

still think it remains a debate. That is all. 

Ms. CAPPS. All right. Fair enough. We need to have another 

hearing, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I think the gentlelady from California would remind the members that there are four votes coming up between 12 

59 

and 12:15. However, being a representative from a territory, I only 

vote on amendments, so I will keep this going. 

I have a question here for Mr. Gudes. You raised a concern with 

provisions in the bill that would direct NOAA to complete a classification of marine ecoregions and also direct NOAA to work toward 

the goal of designating new sanctuaries representative of the full 

spectrum of marine ecoregions of the United States. 

Now, why is this inventory, which would be designated by NOAA 

in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, a problem? 

Mr. GUDES. Well, I think our focus is that where NOAA should 

be investing additional resources that the Committee is recommending should be on capacity building in the existing sanctuaries 

before going and creating additional sanctuaries. As far as ecosystems, beyond that, I would have to get back to you and focus 

a bit more on the study that you are talking about. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. We would appreciate that. Also, why is 

the goal of designating new sanctuaries to capture the full range 

of marine ecoregions a problem when currently the same type of 

goal exists for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System? 

Mr. GUDES. Well, I think part and parcel to this discussion 

today, which was kind of before when Rick was talking and I was 

talking, is that the flip side of the comment before about only 28 

percent of the Channel Islands is closed to fishing is that as the 

system increases that means that there is 100 percent of all those 

areas that are open to recreational fishing now, and whether it is 

28 percent, or 50 percent, or 100 percent, that means that what the 

Committee is contemplating or the NOAA Marine Sanctuary Program is contemplating is additional fishing closures. 

As I tried to say at the beginning of my statement, geographicbased management and no take zones is not something that our industry supports at all. I hope that is clear. Madam Chair, can I 

also? Earlier you had asked me about why I thought that there 

needed to be a focus on balanced use and human use of the sanctuaries. 

This is a reauthorization bill, so it is pivoting off of what already 

exists. As I tried to point out in my testimony before, the reauthorization eliminates the current law which provides for facilitating 

public and private uses of sanctuaries. 

So I am not allowed to ask questions of the dais, but it seems 

that the Committee has made a decision to eliminate that, and, you 

know, we are strongly arguing no, that that side needs to be put 

into the bill, not the way it is drafted now. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. Well, when you reauthorize something, you 

know, you may add or subtract from the original. 

Mr. GUDES. Yes, ma’am. You do the laws, we don’t. 

Ms. BORDALLO. We will confer with the Committee on that. Mr. 

Kroll, I have a question for you. Can you confirm that all of the 

counties and the communities that surround the Thunder Bay 

Sanctuary support the expansion of the sanctuary’s boundaries? To 

your knowledge is there any local opposition to the expansion? 

Mr. KROLL. Thank you, Madam, but when we started our management plan review process we of course had some public hearings in counties on either side of us, and, as a result of those hearings, we ended up with requests from these counties to become part 

60 

of the sanctuary. We have a lot of documentation of where county 

entities have written letters of support and requesting to become 

part of the sanctuary as adjoining counties. 

So as part of our management plan review process it ended up 

bringing up actually a bigger question to us. So the way I look at 

this whole process is that it is wonderful we can go back and do 

these public hearings and do this process. Now Senator Levin has 

introduced in this bill. In a way, all we are going to do is really 

duplicate what already in a sense has been done by virtue of actual, if you wish, error by the fact that people came to us rather 

than we go to them. 

So this documentation is there, there is many county entities, 

local government groups, private groups that have written letters 

of support in requesting us to expand the sanctuary. So if we go 

right out there back to them for the same reason, you know, this 

would be a whole lot better process in my mind. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So generally then you would say that they are in 

support? 

Mr. KROLL. They are absolutely 110 percent in support the way 

I look at it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. We will put that down in the notes. 

I have, yes, another question for Mr. Sullivan. My legislation would 

direct NOAA to complete an inventory of maritime heritage resources in the United States and include a selection of such areas 

in a new site selection list for potential designation as new marine 

sanctuaries. 

To complete these tasks, the bill would amend the Sanctuaries 

Act to allow NOAA to withhold from the public resource information in order to protect the resource from harm. Do you support 

this particular provision? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think as everything depends on facts of an individual situation and the law has to be applied, but in general, for 

good reasons and for a limited time, yes, I think that would make 

a good deal of sense in terms of protecting the integrity of the process to produce the best results. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You think it should be mentioned or is the provision not necessary? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think it would be a good thing to keep it in. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. I have another question 

now for Ms. Spruill. Other witnesses have raised the prospect that 

President Bush might use his authority under the Antiquities Act 

to designate new marine national monuments before he leaves office. 

Now, regardless of whether you think this is good or bad, do you 

believe the existing statutory limitation on the designation of new 

marine sanctuaries has left the President with few, if any other options to protect nationally significant portions of the marine environment? 

Ms. SPRUILL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think what you are 

touching on now, you are mentioning some of the minor concerns 

that I raised in my testimony. There are sort of four points that 

we think could be fairly easily addressed. One of them is that the 

language on the marine national monuments not undercut the Antiquities Act or the proclamation creating them. 

61 

We think that there is some modification of the language in the 

bill that could help that situation. We also think adequate public 

review is provided for the resource classification, identification and 

inventory procedures, and then a couple of other minor points that 

we can certainly follow-up with later. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 

Mr. Wittman for any questions he may have. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Another question for Mr. Dunnigan. You had said a little bit earlier that there 

was no conflict between the Sanctuary Program and the National 

Marine Fishery Service. If you look back, in 2005, Senator Inouye 

asked for some clarification. As I understand it, the internal operational guidelines are still not final. 

Can you give us an idea about when you think those internal 

guidelines will be final? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Thank you, sir. Yes. I expect that they will be 

final within the next couple of weeks, if not sometime early next 

week. We were trying to get them done, understanding the Committee’s work, and just have had some final touch ups that we have 

had to do to that. 

Vice Admiral Lautenbacher wrote Senator Inouye a letter at that 

time two years ago, and that letter is still our understanding of 

how these programs can work together. The guidelines are not so 

much guidelines as they are an explanation of the processes and 

how they relate to each other. 

Mr. WITTMAN. And you will make sure you provide copies of that 

to the members of the Committee once the guidelines come out? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. OK. Thank you. One other additional question. 

You had spoken earlier about how there are some fishery scientists 

available within the National Marine Sanctuaries Act area to make 

decisions. Can you tell us how many fishery scientists are actually 

assigned to decisionmaking within the National Marine Sanctuaries Act? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. I can get you some detail on that, sir. I don’t 

have that number with me right now. 

Mr. WITTMAN. OK. That would be great if you could do that. 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. Be glad to. Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. For Mr. Sullivan. You had spoken a little bit earlier about obviously the mission of the Marine Science Museum. 

Can you give us an idea about how you believe this reauthorization 

of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act would actually help an entity, like the Marine Science Museum, in accomplishing its mission? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think I should first say that without the National Marine Sanctuary Act I doubt seriously that the magnificent 

facility we have in Newport News, working in conjunction with our 

partners at NOAA, would exist. I mean, it made possible the preservation and the recovery of Monitor artifacts. 

So it is a powerful example of when done right what an institution like mine, a private museum, can accomplish working with a 

government agency to preserve an important part of our marine 

heritage. So I am not a national expert, my expertise is limited to 

your district, Congressman, but I think we could be an example 

62 

that could be applied, and probably is being applied, in other parts 

of the country and in additional places if this reauthorization is 

complete. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Now the 

Chair recognizes the Ranking Member. Do you have any questions? 

Mr. BROWN. No, ma’am. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. He passes. All right. I guess I have three quick 

questions to Mr. Dunnigan. This is for H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay 

Sanctuary Expansion. What are NOAA’s views on H.R. 6204, and 

are the State of Michigan and the two affected counties in full support of this expansion, and what additional costs will this expansion impose on the Sanctuary Program’s annual budget? 

Mr. DUNNIGAN. One, two, three, Madam Chair. First of all, we 

don’t have a specific administration view on that bill. 

We recognize that the values that the bill would promote are consistent with the existing sanctuary and so it is the kind of thing 

that we think could be a good idea, although generally we think 

that it is better for these kinds of decisions to be made through the 

administrative processes rather than having a lot of them turned 

down in legislation. 

Second, in terms of the specific amount, the support, rather, of 

the counties in the State of Michigan, our impression is that the 

local governments are in support of supporting, and strengthening, 

and broadening the sanctuary. I do not know what the position formally of the state is. 

Third, on the question of how much more would it cost us to administer the sanctuary, we haven’t done that kind of an analysis 

yet, but when we have it, we would be glad to make it available. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Ms. Spruill, you noted your support for 

the updated findings that recognized the several ecological benefits 

that are derived from the use of marine protected areas, including 

marine reserves. Mr. Gudes and Mr. Marks to the contrary seem 

to believe that the science behind these strategies remains inconclusive. 

So can you tell us, what is the present scientific consensus on the 

ecological function and the benefits from using marine protected 

areas? 

Ms. SPRUILL. I think there is no doubt that marine protected 

areas and marine reserves, and we have to be careful about the 

language because it means different things in very different places, 

but there is no doubt that marine protected areas, the no take 

areas, are having a significant impact on ecological systems in the 

ocean. 

You know, I think, again, we have to look at these systems as 

long-term investments in our future, and we need a series of these 

tools. I think the Channel Islands has been probably the best example. Congresswoman Capps already mentioned the fishing along 

the line. We are seeing that in the Florida Keys as well. 

So we are not only seeing more science with regard to marine reserves, we are also beginning to see results. So it is clear that it 

needs to be part of the system. 

63 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to 

thank all of the witnesses for their participation in the hearing 

today, and particular to thank my Ranking Member, Mr. Brown 

from South Carolina, for being here with us, and Mr. Wittman, the 

gentleman from Virginia. Ranking Member has a comment/question. 

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chair, I would like to enter in the records 

a letter to the President from the Sport Fishing Association and 

others, and also a statement from fishery community on marine 

protected areas. 

Ms. BORDALLO. No objection. So ordered. I will also like to remind the members of the Subcommittee, they may have additional 

questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to these 

in writing. The hearing record for all involved will be held open for 

10 days for these responses. 

If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, the 

Chairwoman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and 

all of our witnesses this morning. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife and Oceans stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ