Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
256 Figueroa Street #1, Monterey, CA 93940
www.alliancefisheries.com

 

environmental change or changes that may result from actions occurring outside of our nations jurisdiction.  Importantly, there is no accounting for predator-prey relationships and no recognition that by providing enhanced protection for marine mammals we are skewing population structures.  As you well know this is a significant issue off the California coast with the California sealion population currently estimated at approximately 320,000 animals, each of which consume between 30-40 pounds of sea food a day.  Compared with their “natural” population of about 50,000 animals, it’s hard not to believe that this many sealions aren’t affecting the health of the ecosystem.  The definition of ecosystem health would also affect even populations at the microbial level.  Changes in life at that level could also be cause for actions taken to protect healthy ecosystems. 

HR21 also requires the use of the most cautious approach possible.  Considering that there is much that is not known about the ocean, this could draw to a standstill virtually all human uses of the ocean, and also create a highly litigious climate.  Further, this policy appears to affect not only federal actions but state and local governments as well, so that federal actions would apply to many activities currently regulated by states and localities.  There is bound to be major disputes over this.

We also wonder about the federal bureaucracy created by this section in requiring that every action that falls under the category of National Ocean Policy is subjected to a federal review.  In our experience, there’s not been a good track record of federal agencies being able to act in a timely manner on complex issues.  It’s doubtful, therefore, that the timetable in this Title can be met.

Title II – NOAA Organic Act
This title generally establishes into law the current structure of NOAA and that is a good thing.  It does appear however, that one section of this title appears to require establishment of some sort of federal commercial fishing license.  This is unclear and needs to be explained.

Title III– NATIONAL OCEAN LEADERSHIP AND COORDINATION
It appears that since President Bush has already established a Committee on Ocean Policy, much of this Title may not be necessary.  However, Section 303 speaks to the requirement to have a plan for “an ecosystem based management regime for activities in federal waters”.  If this is truly meant to include such maritime activities as commercial cargo transportation, military operations, Coast Guard enforcement, and search and rescue, how are these actives going to fit in with ecosystem based management?  What would you see changing in something like maritime transportation based on ecosystem concerns?  Considering that California ports by themselves accommodate 40% of all of the imports to the Unites States and this occurs only through a small handful of ports, how would concerns over ecosystem based management possibly affect those activities?

Title IV – REGIONAL COORDINATION AND ECOSYSTEM PLANNING
This section appears to establish a new level of federal bureaucracy.  It does seem to include managing both state and federal fisheries, the conflicts will arise with State Fish and Game laws that may be on the books when the proposed regional partnerships establish mechanism to manage state fisheries.  We can see a lot a resistance from the states for this proposal.

HR21 also adds a third federal agency with authority to create fishing regulations, the first two being NOAA-Fisheries and the NOAA Sanctuaries Program.  In our opinion, it should

 

CONTINUED