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

“There are many existing regulations and restrictions on fishing activities in the Monterey Bay area that are designed to protect the long-term health of the fisheries, as well as other resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay area. Therefore, NOAA does not believe it is necessary to promulgate any additional regulations.” (Sec III - 80), and,

“In its evaluation of this issue, NOAA considered whether under the present regulatory structure sufficient protection for Sanctuary resources existed. NOAA has determined …that fishing in the Sanctuary, including fishing for shellfish and invertebrates shall not be regulated as part of the Sanctuary management regime. Monterey Bay fish resources are already extensively managed by existing authorities and NOAA does not envision a fishery management role for the Sanctuary at this time. Instead, the Sanctuary will provide research results and recommendations to existing fishery management agencies in order to enhance the protection of fishery and other Sanctuary resources.”(Sec III - 80), and,

“Should problems arise in the future, NOAA would consult with the State, PFMC, and NMFS, as well as the industry, to determine an appropriate course of action.”

It is this last quotation that provides the basis for the Sanctuary to consult with Fishery Management Agencies and potentially adopt fishing restrictions. Many times during the MPAWG process we challenged the Sanctuary and MPA advocates to state what fishery problems have arisen that are not being dealt with by the authorized fishery management agencies. Without such a clear problem statement, the Sanctuary has no authority, legal or moral, to advocate for or promulgate a regulation or use its zoning authority, to exclude fishing from any area. No such problem statement has been heard during the MPAWG process. In fact, it can be shown that there are far fewer commercial vessels, and about an equal number of recreational vessels, as existed ten years ago. And, even a cursory review of fishery regulations will show a far more restrictive fishing structure than existed at the time of Sanctuary designation. It is only for a few species of rockfish that limited data suggests there may be a problem. However, this has been decisively dealt with by the CDFG and the PFMC, in part through very large areas being set off limits to certain types of bottom fishing.

There have been numerous statements regarding the “mandate” of the Sanctuary Program to protect habitats and nurture increased biodiversity. No doubt that this language exists within the National Marine Sanctuary Act and our designation document. However, these concepts do not supercede the designation document’s language that so clearly states that the Sanctuary will not be in the fishery management business. In fact, there are many references in designation documents that suggest that the way in which habitat is preserved is by controlling pollutants and the disturbance of the sea bed. Some might make an argument regarding bottom trawling with reference to disturbing the sea bed, but that itself is a complex issue (please refer to Section III - 79, above), and not the topic of the MPAWG or this letter. We believe, in fact, that the Sanctuary cannot use “enhancing biodiversity” or “habitat protection” as justification for fishing restrictions, when all of the language in the designation document is considered. The role that is clearly spelled out for the Sanctuary in fishery management issues is for the Sanctuary to “provide research results and recommendations” to the proper fishery agencies – a role that we want to offer our active assistance and which we support. The indirect role for the Sanctuary Program is to provide good water quality and prevent the disturbance of the sea bed (i.e., oil drilling)

There are other areas of Federal law, including but not limited to the 1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act, and Executive Order #12866 (Regulatory Planning Review), that require economic impact assessments of federal actions. Additionally, National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines state that economic impact is significant under the RFA if at least 20% of the businesses within an affected fishery lose 5% of their annual gross revenue, or 2% or more of the affected parties are driven out of business, which is quite likely to be the case with any large scale use of MPAs. Various safeguards are in place to mitigate significant impacts. The Sanctuary Program cannot arbitrarily make MPA decisions. Not only will a thorough economic analysis need to occur, (a point on which there appeared to be agreement on the MPAWG), but this information must be given a very high priority in the decision making for any potential MPAs.

These concerns over Federal law are still only side issues compared to the importance that the Sanctuary Program not be perceived in this community as an indifferent Federal agency which will break its promise to fishermen. We hope by now the Sanctuary Program understands there is widespread community awareness of and appreciation for this promise, and likewise there will be widespread community dismay should the Sanctuary Program break the understanding that created the Sanctuary. The fact that the support of the fishing community was required for the Sanctuary to come into existence is well established. If the Sanctuary Program disputes this, or has decided to break its promise, we would like to hear that clearly and publicly.
We have also heard that the Sanctuary Program will not regulate fishing, but rather will partner with CDFG and the PFMC to address fishery issues. This feels like an effort to wordsmith around the promise made to us. The role for the Sanctuary is as a stakeholder in the fishery management process. CONTINUED