Alliance of Communities for Sustainable
Fisheries
256 Figueroa Street #1, Monterey, CA 93940
www.alliancefisheries.com
1.
Management of Marine Fisheries Within the Boundaries
of the Sanctuary.
We believe that marine fisheries should be managed
primarily, if not exclusively, by state and federal agencies
pursuant to legislation and regulations that have been enacted
for that specific purpose.
On the federal side, the principal governing legislation
is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
which was recently amended by the United States Congress.[2]
The primacy of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is also spelled
out in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, in particular
Section 304(a)(5) [16 U.S.C. § 1434(a)(5)].
In its original designation document, the Monterey
Sanctuary had no authority to regulate fishing activity, except
for “aquaculture or kelp harvesting within the Sanctuary.”
The Alliance believes it would be duplicative of the
programs being administered by the Pacific Fishery Management
Council and NOAA-Fisheries to provide broad regulatory authority
over fisheries to a Sanctuary manager, either directly or
indirectly. The NOAA
Marine Sanctuaries Program lacks the breadth of scientific
experience and knowledge possessed by the Council and
NOAA-Fisheries on fisheries questions.
And the Magnuson-Stevens Act is implemented in a much
more open and transparent fashion than the Sanctuaries Program.
Congress’ recent reaffirmation of the Council process,
after reviewing suggested changes in that process during
reauthorization, confirmed national policy on the question of
primary of national fishery management under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Principles of good and efficient government militate
against creating competitive regulatory programs that breed
conflict and stalemate.
This kind of conflict is one of the weaknesses of the
existing statutory language in the Sanctuaries Act relating to
fishery management.
We consider it unfortunate if the NOAA Marine Sanctuaries
Program expands its bureaucratic “turf” with respect to fishing
issues. For example,
the Pacific Council has taken steps to restrict trawling
activities in environmentally sensitive areas along the West
Coast. In this
regard, it is noted that in H.R. 5946 Congress added new
discretionary authority to the Councils to protect deep sea
corals and create closed fishing areas (sometimes referred to as
“marine protected areas”) as part of the Magnuson-Stevens
fishery management process.
This new discretion must be exercised on the basis of
several factors, including use of the best scientific
information available and an assessment of the costs and
benefits of any area closure to fishing.
No comparable amendments have been made to the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act.
Thus, Congress has provided primary responsibility for
marine protected areas, as they might relate to marine
fisheries, to the Councils and NOAA-Fisheries, not the NOAA
Marine Sanctuaries Program.
We hope that this recent legislation will eliminate any
unnecessary conflicts within NOAA between NOAA Fisheries and the
NOAA Marine Sanctuaries Program.
[2]
H.R. 5946 (enrolled version), the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2006.
CONTINUED
