Aliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
P O Box 1309, Carmel Valley, CA 93924 (831) 659-2838

May 29, 2003

Holly Price, Ph.D.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
299 Foam Street
Monterey, CA 93940

Dear Holly,
We the undersigned members of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary special MPA Work Group (MPAWG) want to go on record as stating clearly what we will and will not support in the way of Sanctuary endorsed or created “special” MPAs within our Sanctuary, and why. We will also propose a roadmap that outlines the steps it will take to get our support for MPAs. We also want to state up-front that we appreciate the largely constructive tone of the MPAWG.

The Problem
The MPAWG spent its time discussing potential criteria for establishing MPAs within the Sanctuary. Despite much discussion and some good work, what remains missing is a problem statement that justifies Sanctuary action. Sanctuary action could be either advocacy/comment (including the idea of “partnering” with the State Department of Fish and Game, or the Pacific Fisheries Management Council) or the direct use of the regulation/zoning authority found in the National Marine Sanctuary Act. We think this point is a showstopper that will not allow our MPAWG to ever reach full consensus, nor produce a quality product. When weighed against the moral and ethical issues inherent in the promise of a non-regulating Sanctuary originally made to the fishing community, and the language found in our existing Management Plan, we do not see that the Sanctuary has a clear legal basis for establishing or advocating for MPAs, unless significant problems within our fisheries can be shown that were not anticipated in the 1992 Designation documents, and which are not being addressed by authorized fishery management agencies. However, if the MBNMS or the Sanctuary Headquarters folks intend on seeking new authority by changing the designation documents, we would like to be told that.

We must go into some detail on this point. To quote from the existing designation documents:

“No fishing regulations are proposed. Fisheries management will remain under the existing jurisdiction of the State of California, the National Marines Fishery Service, and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. In the case of the Monterey Bay, area fish resources are already extensively managed by existing authorities. Sanctuary prohibitions that may indirectly affect fishing activities have been written to explicitly exempt traditional fishing activities, mariculture, and kelp harvesting.” (Sec I – 24), and,

“The proposed designation should have no negative effects on the fishing industry.
Net effects of preserving habitat and water quality by controlling pollutants and disturbance of the sea bed should be very positive for maintaining healthy and productive fish stocks. No regulations are proposed governing fishing activities.” (Sec I – 25), and,

“During consultation, NOAA requested that the PFMC determine if additional fishery regulations were necessary with Sanctuary designation in accordance with section 304(b)(5). PFMC responded that no additional regulations were necessary and that management responsibilities regarding fishing activities should remain with existing authorities.” (Sec I - 31), and,

“Fishing in the Sanctuary will be regulated other than under the Sanctuary regulatory regime by Federal and State authorities of competent jurisdiction.” (“Fishing regulation” means a regulation that is directed specifically at fishing activities or fishing vessels. This does not include a regulation that is applicable to all types of vessels or activities.)

Under the status quo, (the preferred alternative) fishing would continue without any additional regulation under the Sanctuary regulatory regime. As a result of other Sanctuary regulations aimed at improving water quality and fish habitat, it is expected that the Sanctuary would have a positive impact on fishing activities.

The proposed final Sanctuary regulations include four regulations (if written without the exemption) that could potentially indirectly affect fishing activities. However, each of the four regulations specifically exempts traditional fishing activities from the scope of the prohibitions to the extent consistent with existing other State and Federal regulations.”(Sec III - 79), and, CONTINUED