Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
256 Figueroa Street #1, Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 373-5238
www.alliancefisheries.com

 

October 9, 2006

Mr. Sean Hastings

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
113 Harbor Way
Suite 150
Santa Barbara, CA 93109

Dear Mr. Hastings,

Please accept the following comments on behalf of the Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries (ACSF).  The ACSF is a 501(c) 3 organization designed to represent fishing families and fishing communities throughout Central California.  We’re writing to comment regarding the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) proposal as published in the August 11, 2006 Federal Register to establish MPA’s in Federal Waters of that Sanctuary.

Our organization has grave concerns about any change to a designation document of any Sanctuary which would provide it new authority to create fishing regulations within that Sanctuary.  Sanctuary designation documents were drafted as the basis of the understanding struck between the community and the Sanctuary program at the time that the Sanctuary was being proposed.  While we will be the first to agree that the Sanctuary should have the ability to amend its management plans, amending the designation document should occur only with the most significant science based need as a justification, and for which there is no other practical legal method for the Sanctuary to accomplish its goals.  Again there must be an overarching need for the Sanctuary program to do this, filled by no other agency.  This is not the case with the CINMS proposal.

While we acknowledge the usefulness of creating an MPA for scientific study purposes, we feel this is hardly an urgent need in the case of CINMS.  Nor has CINMS made any credible case for the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks or enhancement of biodiversity that have not already been accomplished through the Council’s EFH and other actions. 

Section 1434 (a) (5) of Title 16, United States Code provides regional fisheries management councils “with the opportunity to prepare draft regulations for fishing within the exclusive economic zone as the Council may deem necessary to implement the proposed designation.”   A Council’s opportunity to carry out this function is only denied if the Council declines to act or acts inappropriately.  In the case of CINMS the PFMC is in the process of creating regulations that can cover, in nearly all circumstances, fishing activities both on the bottom and in the water column in the proposed MPA.  Because the Council is making progress on this, it is substantially premature for the National Marine Sanctuary Program to propose its own regulations.  I will also add that the Sanctuary has existing authority to prohibit removal of Sanctuary Resources other than for harvest.  Secondly it is highly unlikely that vessels from out of State will be fishing in these areas.  This possibility is so remote that it should not be a significant factor in this decision making. 

I also point out that MSA National Standard 7 stipulates that “the conservation and management measures shall to the extent possible minimize cost and avoid duplication.”  The CINMS regulatory proposal is in fact a wasteful duplication of effort and creates public confusion.  Congress has created the MSA precisely to make sure that both the food production capabilities of our Nation along with proper conservation measures are maintained.  Through the Council process there is a fair public and scientifically based process to deal with conservation and/or fishery management questions.

CONTINUED