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

 

Control Boards.  Those agencies cannot release their permits unless the MBNMS "authorizes" them to do so.  The NMSA does not define "harmful", and the Sanctuaries are not held to any science standard by the Act.  This is very different from the EPA and the Regional water boards, who have science-based standards for discharges, including dredged material.  The Sanctuary's role permitting dredging activities including material disposal is redundant at best, and is often a waste of time and taxpayer's money.

This situation has cost MBNMS-area harbors time and thousands of dollars.  As fishermen, we keep our boats in these harbors, and we must have access to the sea.  When costs go up for a harbor, it is the users (us!) who pay in the end. 

Regarding the specific expansions in HR 1187, Bodega Bay does contain a harbor which needs to be dredged regularly, and that material is deposited offshore into what would become a NMS.  I recommend that specific language be added to HR 1187 that would exempt that harbor from any regulatory control by the sanctuary for all of its dredging activities, including material disposal.  Please remember that there is still a very high level of testing and control over these activities by other federal and State agencies.

One other aspect of discharges involves those from small vessels.  If the Sanctuaries are allowed to require small commercial fishing boats to have waste holding tanks or other expensive treatment systems to stop discharges of sewage from these vessels when they are over three miles from shore, they will impose a significant expense that will directly affect the small, family run commercial fishing businesses that make up the vast majority of the California fleet.

There is no scientific basis to say that these very small discharges so far from shore could ever be a problem for sanctuary resources.  In fact, these discharges are utterly dwarfed by "discharges" from the very large marine mammal population.  

8.      In your testimony, you mention that the “promise” to fishermen was broken.  Can you elaborate on what the “promise” was and when you believe it was broken?  Because you feel the “promise” not to affect commercial fishing in the Sanctuaries has been broken before, do you believe it is that much more important to protect commercial fishing opportunities in this legislation?

When the MBNMS was being proposed in 1991 and 1992, fishermen were clearly promised by both elected officials and representatives from NOAA that the new Sanctuary would not create regulations that would affect them or their fishing activities.  This promise is reflected in a 2003 quote by then-Congressman Leon Panetta, who said

     "I think the reason we were able to get such a large consensus (for sanctuary designation) was that I made it clear the sanctuary was not going to represent a whole new bureaucracy imposing regulations on fishermen."

Similar promises were made in conjunction with the establishment of the Gulf of Farallones and Cordell Bank Sanctuaries.  The "promise" is reflected in the designation

CONTINUED