STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL BINGHAM, HABITAT DIRECTOR, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS to the ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON COASTAL PROTECTION on CALIFORNIA MARINE LIFE MANAGEMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 1 December 1997 Half Moon Bay, California Good Afternoon Chairman Lempert and members of the Select Committee. My name is Nat Bingham and I am the Director of Habitat Protection for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA). Prior to going to work full time for the PCFFA and the Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR) on fish habitat protection issues, I was a commercial fisherman for over 30 years here on the Pacific Coast, although I actually began fishing as a teenager in the Bahamas. I am also a public member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the federal body that recommends management measures for a number of Pacific fisheries to the Department of Commerce. Pursuant to changes made last year by Congress, with the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act, the Pacific Council and the other regional fishery councils are now amending their fishery management plans to include essential fish habitat. I wish to thank the Select Committee for including a panel today on marine protected areas as part of the discussion on improving our management of our living marine resources. This is an issue I have been interested in for some years and from time to time have held discussions with other fishermen about the possible advantages of establishing protected areas -- from longline fishermen on the North Coast concerned about the impacts heavy trawl gear might be having on rockfish and their habitats to sea urchin and abalone fishermen pondering the question of whether establishing some no-take zones for those species might be beneficial to the fishery. The following are some of my thoughts based on my experience. They are not necessarily those of PCFFA or IFR. At the outset of this discussion I should warn that while there may be some benefits to be achieved through the establishment of protected areas, including no-take zones, the setting aside of these areas is no panacea. Protected areas should not be seen as a substitute for other measures needed for the conservation of marine species; measures such as limiting the number of vessels or limiting the amount of gear, for example, or the establishment of seasons, or quotas -- where appropriate. Moreover, the mere establishment of protected areas, no matter how well placed, will do little good if there is not good enforcement to go with it. Nor will protected zones do much good unless water quality and disturbances, other than fishing, are controlled. Further, I do not see much benefit in "locking-up" vast areas of the ocean, such as the suggestion of 20%, merely for the sake of prohibiting fishing. Protected areas to be effective do not have to be large necessarily, but carefully selected for their attributes and well placed. I would agree with Assemblyman Keeley and others that there needs to be a comprehensive and coordinated program for marine protected areas offshore California. Marine protected areas should serve the purpose of providing protection and understanding of our marine resources. And, we must guard against wealthy beachfront communities seeking to create de facto private playgrounds for themselves under the guise of marine reserves, as we witnessed this past year with the City of Malibu. State legislation addressing marine protected areas, I believe, requires a two-step process: First, a panel consisting of marine scientists, appropriate Department of Fish & Game personnel (including enforcement), fishermen -- commercial and sport, marine conservation groups, the Coastal Commission, and federal agencies -- ranging from the National Marine Fisheries Service to the National marine sanctuaries to Sea Grant, should be established for the purpose of reviewing this state's current marine protected areas. Fishermen definitely have to be part of any panel, not simply because it is their fishing grounds that may be affected, but more importantly because they have a first hand knowledge of the ocean habitats along many areas of the California coast where there has been little research or agency attention. The excellent Sea Grant publication by Deborah McArdle, California Marine Protected Areas, could be used as the basis for that review to consider each of the existing protected areas and whether they should: 1) have boundary changes; 2) have regulatory changes; 3) be expanded; 4) be consolidated; or 5) be abolished (if they are not serving any purpose). Second, this same panel could develop a set of criteria for establishment of new protected areas along the coast to be implemented either by the Legislature or the Commission. I suggest within the broad framework of a marine protected area program, the establishment of three categories as follows: CRITICAL MARINE HABITAT. This category would be aimed at protecting special habitats by regulating or restricting certain types of fishing gear, as well as prohibiting certain types of non-fishing activities; dredge spoil disposal, for example. It would also be the most encompassing geographically. Offshore Cape Mendocino, the Cordell Bank and other ocean bottoms off the state are rocky outcroppings that provide habitat essential for various species of rockfish. Because of their configuration these areas have been protected in the past but with newer and heavier trawl gear these habitats could be destroyed. In these types of settings, it may be necessary to restrict bottom trawling. In other areas, however, it is the natural, sandy bottom trawl grounds that are being destroyed. Some examples of this are in the Santa Barbara Channel where shell mounds left from oil drilling, as well as the debris associated with oil drilling and the rigs themselves, create a threat to sandy bottom habitats that supported many important species of sole, flounder and halibut. Establishing these areas as Critical Marine Habitat as part of a California Marine Protected Areas Act, could benefit both the species indigenous to these areas as well as the fishery -- and specifically trawling -- by requiring the removal of oil development associated materials. MARINE REPLENISHMENT ZONES. This category within a marine protected areas program would restrict or prohibit the take of certain species within an area, but allow fisheries for the harvest of other stocks. It should not, for example, in setting aside areas deemed essential for abalone or sea urchin spawning or protection of stocks of resident rockfish, be necessary to eliminate other types of fisheries such as salmon trolling or even the use of crab traps. The intent of this category would be to create protected zones for species that may require specific densities or have other special requirements. MARINE PRESERVES. This last category would be a no-take zone, including both fishing and scientific collection. It would, obviously, be the most narrowly drawn, and would be established for the purposes of providing baseline information, observation, and non-collection scientific research. If does little good to simply restrict fishing and then promote diving or other human activities within these "protected" areas. Access to marine preserves must be carefully restricted to prevent another Yosemite floor -- a kind of marine Disneyland. We know from experience with coral reefs that controlling water pollution, diving and collection is as important as fishing bans to protect marine ecosystems. With marine preserves, the focus must be on protection, not recreation or entertainment. Mr. Chairman, I am supportive of state legislation aimed at reviewing California's marine protected areas and establishing criteria for the establishment of new ones. As I mentioned, marine protected areas may be useful in our efforts to conserve our marine stocks and enhance some marine fisheries. But we must recognize their limitations and not attempt to use them where other measures are needed. Protected areas must be carefully placed, considering the geography and the species of concern in each area. The fishing industry must be part of this process. The areas and the restrictions placed on each must be enforceable. They must, where necessary, be able to regulate all human activity, not simply fishing. And, we must recognize that "one size does not fit all." There is a need for different categories of marine protected areas, as I mentioned, and each of these must be tailored to the specific area. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify here this afternoon. I will be happy to answer any questions members of the Select Committee may have. *****