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

Sanctuary Advisory Council
Another quite divisive issue for the Sanctuary Program is over the construction and rules surrounding the Sanctuary Advisory Council. We are aware that in the protracted discussions that occurred in the northern San Luis Obispo County area regarding the possibility of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary expanding southwards, one of the central issues was the loss of local control. As best we could tell, local officials down there were simply not impressed that the Sanctuary Advisory Council, as currently constructed, would ever provide them with a meaningful voice to the Federal Program. We are also aware that similar concerns exist from the public and some current and former SAC members of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Certainly, our own experience tells us that the rules mandated on the Sanctuary Advisory Council by NOAA need to be fundamentally changed to allow it more of a partnership role with the Sanctuary Program, and insure a strong, independent voice. The fact that the current NMSA exempts SAC’s from the Federal Advisory Commission Act would indicate that Congress does want SAC’s to operate with more independence. However, NOAA is still not clear enough on this point. This issue could be dealt with in the reauthorization of the NMSA and would go a long way toward assuring continuing community support and removing obstacles for the Sanctuary Program’s future. It must be clear that SAC’s can communicate with whomever they wish, that the Sanctuary Program not control the SAC appointments, and that conflicts of interest be declared. We are aware that numerous other organizations and agencies have all asked for the SAC to more strongly represent local interests. Surely, you must be aware that this has become a very divisive issue for the MBNMS, with an increasingly frustrated public.

Definitions and Clarity Needed
The existing NMSA is lacking in critical definitions, or, is overly broad. For example, even the term “Sanctuary” is never defined; nor is “injure” - such as in “to injure a Sanctuary resource”, nor is “protect” or “protection” – even though the NMSA and Program appears to be founded on the idea of the protection of resources.

On this last point, we offer, as a constructive suggestion, that the NMSP and the public would be better served if the Program were founded on a “conservation” goal rather than “protection”. “Protection” is hard to define to reasonable limits, while “conservation” is readily defined as the sustainable use of resources. When Sanctuaries move beyond the protection of discrete and unique features – such as a ship wreck or coral reef, and encompass vast tracks of ocean with historic recreational and commercial uses – then we submit that the hard-to-define concept of “protection” will lead to a Sanctuary staff with undefined guidance, and create a frustrated public. Further, the vagueness of the NMSA will, in our opinion, doom it to litigation when opposing groups fight over its interpretation.

Our organization would very much appreciate working with you to either sponsor or support bills that are put forth in the reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuary Act that resolve the issues that we have expressed above. We have gone so far as to offer a suggested language change to the fishing section of the current National Marine Sanctuary Act that would clearly not allow the Sanctuary Program to create regulations and limit its role to commenting to the agencies. It is, after all, our opinion that the nation’s food supply should be managed through the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fishery Act. We have other suggestions for specific language improvements that we would be pleased to share with you.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working with you on the reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuary Act.

By direction of the Board,

Mike Ricketts, Co-Chair, ACSF
Kathy Fosmark, Co-Chair, ACSF

Supporting Associations & Organizations
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, Port San Luis Commercial Fishermen’s Association
Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Association, Monterey Commercial Fishermen’s Association
Fishermen’s Association of Moss Landing, Santa Cruz Commercial Fishermen’s Marketing Association
Half Moon Bay Fishermen’s Marketing Association, Fishermen’s Alliance, Western Fishboat Owners Association
Ventura County Commercial Fishermen’s Association, Federation of Independent Seafood Harvesters
Golden Gate Fishermen's Association, Port San Luis Harbor District, City of Morro Bay Harbor, City of Monterey Harbor
Moss Landing Harbor District, Santa Cruz Port District, Pillar Pt. Harbor, San Mateo County Harbor District