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

 

foundation of the Sanctuaries’ respective designation documents.  They are regulations, not law.  And as such, they can be changed virtually at any time, as we saw happen over the last few years with the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary – an area where the promise to fishermen was broken.

            Further reinforcing our concern is the language in sections 5(a)(2)(A)(i) and 5(b)(2)(A) which includes “living marine and other resources within” the expanded boundaries of the Sanctuaries.  Fish are living marine resources and these sections give the Sanctuaries clear authority over fish.  Because the language regarding fishing in section 3 is not clear, the Sanctuaries could easily change their designation documents during a future management plan review such as the one required under section 7(b).

            In the area of sport fishing, section 6(c)(1)(C) of H.R. 1187 prohibits the “deposit or discharge of any introduced species” into Sanctuary waters.  The Sanctuaries themselves recognize that there is a thriving catch and release fishery for striped bass (Morone saxitilis) within the Sanctuaries and the proposed management plan changes published by the Sanctuaries last October make a clear exception for that fishery.

            Sport fishermen are also concerned about the language in section 6(c)(3)(B) on marine sanitation devices.  While they agree with – and already meet - the requirements to use Type I or II devices, they are afraid that having this language in a statute governing Sanctuaries will mean that Sanctuary enforcement officers, along with the Coast Guard, will be stopping their fishing operations and boarding their boats to inspect marine sanitation devices.

            California ports are worried about the effect of extending the Sanctuary boundaries to the mean high water line as described in section 5.  The dynamic nature of our west coast currents requires frequent dredging of navigation channels and berthing areas to accommodate commercial and recreational vessel traffic.  The prohibitions on discharge in section 6(c)(1)(A) effectively override the authority and scientific standards of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers, making it difficult to keep our ports open.

            Madame Chair, we appreciate Congresswoman Woolsey’s efforts to expedite changes in the Sanctuary boundaries through legislation.  But unless our concerns about keeping the promise to fishermen are met, we cannot support the bill.  We would rather take our chances with the existing administrative process; even the proposed regulations changing the management plans for these Sanctuaries are explicit in protecting our commercial and recreational fisheries.

            I have attached to my written testimony some suggested changes to H.R. 1187 that we think would provide continued protection for our fisheries.  We would be happy to work with you and your staff to further refine the language in the bill 

            Again, thank you for the opportunity to present the Alliance’s views on H.R. 1187.  I would be happy to answer any questions.

 

CONTINUED