Tom Roff Responds to
The first paragraph of "Let's Clear Up . . . " reminds me of a "chicken little / the sky is falling" reaction. The threats recalled didn't happen and won't if we are diligent in protecting our backyard.
Please read the article City of Morro Bay Wins National Award for Excellence in Coastal and Ocean Management (SLOCoast Journal , July 2012). This is the kind of local effort that will insure the protection of our coast. The fact is, there are many existing federal and state laws, and levels of protection.
In reading the response to my previous articles I was amazed that the basic charges about the direct impact of the MBNMS on stakeholders wasn't answered. For years the sanctuary officials have lobbied the federal Pacific Fishery Management Council and the CAL Fish and Game Commission to restrict fishing. While not promulgating actual sanctuary fishing regulations, using sanctuary stature in this way was not the role agreed to or expected. That this is a misuse of sanctuary authority has been evidenced by the concern expressed by the public officials who supported the original MBNMS designation. (See: Bait and Switch? Fishermen's Difficult Relationship with the Monterey Sanctuary, SLOCoast Journal, May 2012).
I stand by my charge that MBNMS has not proven to be able to stay within its charter with regard to fishery management. The articles I wrote document this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Never did I say that our SLO Coast doesn't deserve sanctuary protection, only that the MBNMS has proven to be a heavy-handed federal bureaucracy that will not enhance our local fisheries or tourist industry, or give us a fair representation on the Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC). The SAC has its own problems. In fact, by the charter imposed on communities from NOAA in Washington DC, the SAC can't even set its own agenda for things the community wants to discuss! Nor can it send a letter directly to our members of Congress, unless it is agreed to by sanctuary management. This is the point I hope hours of research and writing has shown. Many of the members of the SAC are frustrated with the process that mandates the Sanctuary Supervisor sets the agenda and appoints the members.
Our main concern is that if we allow a federal bureaucracy (MBNMS) to absorb SLO County our unique community will be altered negatively under the guise of better management. When has the Federal government proven to be more efficient and flexible than locals? It only took two years for the Nature Conservancy, in partnership with local fishermen, to set aside 3.8 million acres as essential fish habitat.
On the Central Coast we have a recognizable sense of place, a "brand" that brings value to our community. It differentiates us from other California communities and is recognizable by locals and visitors. If we are included in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary we won't stand apart we'll be overwhelmed by the largest marine sanctuary in the US. Our representation on the Sanctuary Advisory Committee will be minimal and our benefits will be diminished. MBNMS may get some additional funding but we won't have a say in the way it's spent. I would respectfully request the readers review the past articles prior to making a decision.
The current threat to our community is PG&E! Read the following articles for background.
Concerns and Risks of PG&E's Proposed Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project (June 2012 SLOCoastJournal)
PG&E Ready to Kill Many Fish with Nuclear Faults Studies (August 2012 SLOCoastJournal)
PG&E is attempting to disrupt our ocean and community. PG&E has been mandated by state law to undertake the seismic testing that will disrupt much of the work we have done the last ten years. The fishermen feel that the same information can be gathered without the use of high intensity blasting. This threat to our environment will become the focus of the California Coastal Commission's permitting process on October 10th in San Diego.
If we band together and flood the Commission with letters asking that they postpone making a decision until other ways of gathering the data can be analyzed, perhaps we won't have our backyard decimated needlessly. PG&E is trying to fast track this, but the faults have been there for eons. Diablo is a dinosaur that should be dismantled to protect us from what will eventually happen — an earthquake that will change our shoreline. We may need to rebuild parts of our community in the future but won't be able to if it's radioactive.
Please send your concerns to: The California Coastal Commission, Re: PG&E Seismic Survey, 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105-2219, Phone: (415) 904-5200, or FAX (415) 904-5400
