Marine National Monuments

Map of U.S. Marine National Monuments (Source: USFWS)

The Antiquities Act of 1906 gives the President of the United States the authority to, by presidential proclamation, create national monuments from federal lands to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features. Since 2006, this authority has been used to create five Marine National Monuments in U.S. Waters, including four in the Pacific Ocean (Papahānaumokuākea, Marianas Trench, Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments) and one in the Atlantic Ocean (Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument).

The Council Coordination Committee (CCC) has expressed concerns about use of the Antiquities Act to prohibit fishing in marine national monuments.

CCC Comment Letters

CCC Resolution on Marine National Monuments

The following resolution was adopted by the CCC in May 2016:

The Council Coordination Committee (CCC) notes the successes of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in managing fishery resources of the United States as well as the marine ecosystems of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the CCC recognizes that there have been a number of proposals regarding the designation of new, or the expansion of existing, Marine National Monuments within the U.S. EEZ.

Whereas, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson­Stevens Act) was originally passed by Congress in 1976 for the specific purpose of sustainably managing the nation's fishery resources to provide a food source, recreational opportunities and livelihoods for the people of the United States;

Whereas Congress, in passing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, found that "Commercial and recreational fishing constitutes a major source of employment and contributes significantly to the economy of the Nation."

Whereas, the Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils that are charged with managing, conserving, and utilizing fishery resources as well as protecting essential fisheries habitat, minimizing bycatch, and protecting listed species within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone;

Whereas, through the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and through the actions of the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the United States has become a global leader in the successful management of its fishery resources and associated ecosystems in a proactive sustainable manner;

Whereas, the Regional Fishery Management Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service have made great strides in managing fisheries in an ecosystem-based manner;

Whereas, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fisheries management actions be developed through a public process, in a transparent manner, and based on the best scientific information available;

Whereas, the Regional Fisheries Management Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service manage fisheries stocks throughout their range and concerns have been raised that designations such as marine monuments may disrupt the ability of the Councils to continue to manage fisheries throughout their range and in an ecosystem-based manner;

Whereas, the designation process of marine national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 does not explicitly require a robust public process or that decisions be based on a science-based environmental analyses, and does not require fishery management or conservation as an objective;

Whereas, the Regional Fishery Management Councils have a strong history of implementing spatial habitat and fisheries conservation measures ( over 1000 individual spatial management measures) in a public, transparent, science-based manner through the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Whereas, concern has been raised that decisions to close areas of the U.S. EEZ, through statutory authorities such as through the Antiquities Act of 1906, may not take into account requirements to achieve optimum yield (OY) from the Nation's fishery resources, may negatively affect domestic fishing jobs, recreational opportunities and undermine efforts by the Regional Fishery Management Councils to develop and implement ecosystem-based management;

Therefore be it resolved, the CCC reiterates its support for the public, transparent, science-based process and management required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Therefore be it further resolved, the CCC recommends that if any designations are made in the marine environment under authorities such as the Antiquities Act of 1906 that fisheries management in the U.S. EEZ waters continue to be developed, analyzed and implemented through the public process of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

CCC Marine National Monument Resolution (pdf)

CCC Consensus Position on Other Federal Statutes

The CCC has also adopted the following consensus position regarding promulgation of fishing regulations and restrictions through federal statutes other than the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see the MSA Working Paper available on this page for more detailed Council perspectives):

The CCC believes that all federal fishery regulations should be promulgated under the Council or Secretarial process established under MSA section 302 to ensure rational management of our fishery resources throughout their range. Under the MSA, the Councils are charged with managing, conserving, and utilizing the Nation’s fishery resources as well as protecting essential fishery habitat, minimizing bycatch, and protecting listed species within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. This is done through a transparent public process that requires decisions to be based on the best scientific information available. This time-tested approach has made U.S. fisheries management highly successful and admired throughout the world.

If changes to Council-managed fisheries (e.g., changes to the level, timing, method, allowable gear, or areas for harvesting management unit species) are required under other statutory authorities such as the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, or the National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (NMSA), such restrictions or modifications to those fisheries should be debated and developed under the existing MSA process, unless a Council cedes this responsibility to another process. In addition, all actions by the Councils are currently subject to review by the Secretary of Commerce to determine consistency with MSA and all other applicable laws. This current review ensures that Council actions – including those that could be made as a result of requirements of other statutes – will continue to be consistent with all relevant laws. Making modifications to fisheries through the MSA process would ensure a transparent, public, and science-based process. When fishery restrictions are put in place through other statutes, the fishing industry and stakeholders are often not consulted, analyses of impacts to fishery-dependent communities are not considered, and regulations are either duplicative, unenforceable, or contradictory.

(Approved May 2017)