Q: And the area — has the area changed at all that the total square miles have –

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, we didn’t go in with — we didn’t go in with a proposal. As I indicated, we had proposals ranging from, you know, cover the entire EEZ in all areas, to do nothing. And so what we did is we took all the information onboard and then crafted this conservation outcome based on recommendations up to the President.

So at the end of the day, the proposal is the proposal the President himself adopted, and that’s what we’re working with.

Q: Thank you.

Q: Thank you, Mr. Connaughton. Can I ask why this was being done under the Antiquities Act versus under a marine-protected areas process? And I believe, and I don’t have perfect recall, that there was some consternation with the current administration over the use of the Antiquities Act by the previous administration to do somewhat the same kind of thing concerning some lands in Utah.

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, first, let me treat the Antiquities Act. That’s the law that was passed back in the early 1900s, first used by Teddy Roosevelt, that gave the President the ability to protect objects of scientific and historic interest. It has been used variously by Presidents over the years. It is the case that the prior administration used it, if you would, at the last minute without any consultation, and created a quite controversial outcome in the late ’90s.

When we came into office, the President recognized the value of the exercise of Antiquities Act authority, but was very critical of the manner in which it was employed. And we committed that if we were to proceed with monuments, we would do so taking into account public input, and we would do so on act on consultation with the public and local governments, and we would seek to find a cooperative outcome, in particular with state and territorial governments.

And so in this instance, we had a very open process. We had I mean, tens of thousands of comments as I recall, several open meetings, a number of open meetings, including in the communities, and a very significant amount of interaction at the highest level of government, with the governors and legislative leadership as we forged this outcome.

So we have always strongly supported the Antiquities Act, but we’ve supported doing it right and effectively. The thing that the President can do with the Antiquities Act is he’s able to bring together a series of authorities and orient them toward an integrated conservation outcome. So, for example, the Magnuson-Stevens fishing act largely deals with fishing. It does address coral reef protections and the like, but that’s in the context of fisheries.

We have other acts that deal with scientific research. And we have other acts that deal with geological resources. What the President can do with Antiquities is knit those together in a more integrated conservation vision, and then at the same time use those authorities to accomplish management. So, for example, with respect to Rose Atoll, the President will be recommending that the Rose Atoll area be incorporated into the existing National Marine Sanctuary that is in place with American Samoa. So they’ll all be under the same management regime. And so that will take a couple of years to work out.

So this is a great prerogative that the President has. We believe that it should be used responsibly, and we’ve done so here with just an incredible outpouring of scientific interest, support, and information.

Q: Thank you. If I could follow up with one other. I had read somewhere where commercial fishing would be allowed. I heard you say it would be restricted in some of the areas. I didn’t hear mention of public access for recreational fishing, and how that was going to be treated in these areas, and whether the President’s executive memo concerning how recreational fishing should be treated, at least under the marine-protected areas process, how that might play into this.

MR. CONNAUGHTON: So with respect to the various island units, so Rose, the central islands, and the three northern islands of the Marianas. We’re establishing 15 nautical conservation management areas. Inside of that area we will be prohibiting commercial fishing.

With respect to other interaction with the resource — it could be research access, indigenous access, if somebody were to request it for recreational fishing — we are putting in place a process similar to that used by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Fish and Wildlife refuges where you consider those requests, and permit them, and tailor a management approach that ensures they can be done in a way that does not diminish the resource. And so there will be an opportunity for the truly adventurous, if they want to go out there, to make a request of the agency that’s managing the resource for that kind of access.

We have some good experience with how to do this. At Palmyra Island today, which is one of the islands, the Fish and Wildlife Service has permitted, on a limited basis, some catch and release bonefishing, and that’s being done, actually, in support of a science management plan where they need to catch the fish and tag them. And so they found a way to provide a pretty remarkable recreational fishing experience, but doing it in a way that’s not — you know, not even creating — not creating any significant potential for harm to the resource we’re seeking to protect. So we just want to be careful and thoughtful about how that’s done, but the opportunity exists.

For those of you not familiar with the geography, though, I would underline, I said “truly adventurous.” We are talking about thousands of miles out of sea. So there is virtually no recreational or individual-type fishing going on in these parts of the ocean. So to the extent that occurs in the future, I think it would be a rare occurrence in any event, which is why I think we could proceed with conservation with such high confidence.

Q: Thank you.

Q: Thanks very much. I was wondering if you could say anything about where this fits into concerns about the health of the oceans, and, you know, concerns about the endangered species and that sort of thing? There’s just a lot of concern about sea life and corals and so forth.

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, to me, and the President and the First Lady, one of the things that really affected us, from learning from the scientists, is these locations are truly among the last pristine areas in the marine environment on earth. They are — have had historically almost no human interaction or impact, and so we’re able to see how the ecosystem works in a way that could actually help us inform management and conservation of the marine resources that are much closer to home.

And so for example, one of the central Pacific islands, in the Pacific (inaudible) island area, has just an inordinate abundance of upper apex predators — you know, large sharks. In fact, they outnumber the smaller fish by several times. Well, we don’t see that anywhere else in the world and the marine biologists are kind of scratching their head and saying, how can that be? How can the food pyramid be upside-down in this area, and what does that tell us about what these other coral areas should look like if we’re managing them appropriately?

So there’s an example. It’s sort of the last living controlled experiment we’ve got to address what is now a growing global consensus to put an end to overfishing once and for all and restore the vitality of fish as a very important source of nutrition and a very important source of biodiversity on earth.

Q: If I could follow up, are the corals here threatened by ocean acidification and will there have to be special actions taken by fish and wildlife service or –

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, that’s another great question, which is, because these are areas are pristine, it gives us the best opportunity to understand the effects of changes in the ocean system, including temperature changes, current changes, and ocean acidification, because you’re not having to factor in other, if you will, much more significant influences that affect our ability to do science closer to home. That’s why, as I said, this is like — this is our best area for controlled science and we can learn about that.

But I would note that some of these coral systems are — they’re in very warm waters and they show a remarkable degree of resiliency and others — you know, they’re subject — you know, whereas we see other areas that are subject to disease — not here but in other coral areas in the Pacific — and we’re able to then begin to figure out why. We are at the frontiers of scientific research with respect to this. We’ve only been at it for a few decades, and in these areas we’ve only been at it for really just a few years at scale.

So there’s a lot more to be developed, which is, again, one of the reasons to do this. It’s really to draw the attention of the nation and the world to this part of the marine environment that is largely overlooked in our geography classes.

Q: Very good. Thank you, sir.

Q: Hi, good to talk to you. A quick question. You said 50 nautical miles was the limit of this. I gather in principle you could have gone out to 200 nautical miles. How did you arrive at the 50 nautical mile line?

CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: We had extensive conversations with the scientists who deal with corals, scientists who deal with fish, and the scientists who deal with foraging seabirds. And as we looked at those three interactions, we had a lot of strong support for looking well beyond the three-mile zones that a few of these areas were currently protected with, but much less foundation for going beyond 50. So 50 seemed to be a good point to draw the line for the purposes of the scientific benefits, if you will, of conservation, and also for the purposes of just effective monitoring and management.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5