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

 

legislation becomes too specific on too many issues, that ability to adapt to local and regional conditions is lost.

6.      You raised concerns in your testimony that the language in the bill extending the Sanctuary jurisdiction to the man high tide in combination with the proposed prohibition on dredging and discharge would prevent the dredging of navigation channels.  What impact would this have on any ports, marinas, or other local and State activities that provide shelter or moorage for commercial and recreational fishing vessels or any other type of recreational vessel?  How many ports are you aware of that are either within the boundaries of the Sanctuaries or that would be affected by this expansion of the Sanctuaries’ boundaries?

There are five ports / harbors that are affected by the expansion of the Sanctuary boundaries and the discharge prohibitions in the bill.  All of these are active harbors that are home to both sport and commercial fishing vessels and which also service transient vessels (both sport and commercial) during the summer fishing seasons.  Without the ability to dredge – and discharge dredged material – these harbors will cease to be functional.  Along with the loss of economic activity for our coastal communities if the harbors close, there is also a major safety hazard.  Weather and wind conditions on the west coast can change quickly; if fewer ports are available, smaller commercial and sport vessels of the type common to our area will have less opportunity to get shelter from adverse conditions.

7.      H.R. 1187 appears to add new prohibitions on the discharge of anything that might harm a sanctuary resource.  With the expansion of the boundary up to the mean high tide level, do you believe this prohibition will affect currently-allowable activities in state waters and could these prohibitions now affect on-land activities (that might be viewed as affecting sanctuary resources)?  Does the scope of this provision concern you?

We do have some concerns about this blanket prohibition, although generally our experience with the Monterey Bay NMS (MBNMS ) has been good.  That Sanctuary has a Water Quality Protection Program that has worked cooperatively with our agriculture community, other local businesses, and local government, to educate those entities and to develop specific plans to minimize polluted urban and agricultural runoff from going in to the sanctuary.  This effort has been a success because the Sanctuary has worked cooperatively with business and local government, and has not tried to become another regulatory agency.  Fishermen are very concerned that good water quality exist, so we have a real interest in the Sanctuary's successes is in this area. 

A significant exception to this approach is in regards to the disposal of clean dredged material from our harbors.  For this activity, the MBNMS, which is currently the only sanctuary that comes right to shore and borders harbors, has exerted regulatory control over dredging superior even to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the State's Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality

CONTINUED