Anonymous
Photo: Northern Chumash Tribal Council
Source: Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala D. Harris and Congressman Salud Carbajal (all D-Calif.) today called on the Commerce Department to grant a five-year extension of the proposal to create the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary and move the designation process forward.
If designated, the marine sanctuary would conserve a diverse marine habitat, help restore California’s kelp forest and protect ancient indigenous settlements in the area.
“Designating the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary remains relevant and responsive to the national significance criteria and management considerations,” the members wrote. “The case is further strengthened by new data and discoveries since its successful nomination five years ago. We urge the Office of Marine Sanctuaries to extend this nomination for an additional five years and to move forward with the designation process to protect this critical marine habitat as soon as possible.”
Full text of the letter follows:
Secretary Ross,
We write in strong support of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary nomination, and we request that you grant a five-year extension for this proposal. Since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) approved this marine sanctuary proposal in 2015, new data, including recent NOAA studies, have only strengthened the case for this sanctuary to be designated.
NOAA released a study in December 2019 showing that California’s coastal waters are acidifying at twice the rate of the global average. These high acidity levels are exacerbated by the alarming loss of more than 90% of coastal marine kelp forests, which can absorb carbon dioxide at twice the rate of land-based forests. Additionally, kelp forests provide critical habitat and food sources for a range of species.
Ocean acidification is a serious threat to both marine ecosystems and coastal economies. A NOAA study released this January showed for the first time that current ocean acidification levels can damage young Dungeness crabs’ shells and sensory organs, threatening the long-term viability of a fishery valued at $220 million annually.
In addition to environmental issues, this proposed marine sanctuary would protect important parts of U.S. history. In 2016, NOAA and the Coast Guard confirmed the archaeological remains off of Point Conception in this proposed area were that of the USS McCulloch, which saw action in both the Spanish American War and World War I. Similarly important cultural artifacts from the settlements of the indigenous Chumash Nation that date back nearly 9,000 years have also been identified in the coastal region surrounding the proposal.
Designating the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary remains relevant and responsive to the national significance criteria and management considerations. The case is further strengthened by new data and discoveries since its successful nomination five years ago. We urge the Office of Marine Sanctuaries to extend this nomination for an additional five years and to move forward with the designation process to protect this critical marine habitat as soon as possible.
The sanctuary should include the Channel Islands and the ocean between Santa Barbara, Goleta and the Islands. Very little local commercial fishing catch is benefiting the local population these days, most is being shipped out. Even our local seasonal lobster now goes almost exclusively to Japan. Let the fishery come back and perhaps a more sustainable catch can be obtainable at our local markets.
the proposed sanctuary is already massive and I’d argue it does not add any net benefit to ocean conservation. You argue that very little commercial catch benefits the community, but the local fleet employs people, markets, distribution, fuel docks, mechanics- all that $$ circulates locally. You cite export of seafood (lobster is primarily exported to china btw, or at least it was before this year) as an issue- do you think a gigantic Federal Marine Sanctuary is going to change that? If you want to support the community and keep seafood local, head down to the Sat AM market and buy from the fleet. Our commercial fisheries are well managed and are an economic and social asset to SB.
Yeah no way should we just rope off the whole channel, that’s an absurd idea. There are lots of local commercial fishermen who are involved in sustainable fisheries here. Shut that down and then we’re buying stuff shipped from who knows where – that’s the exact opposite direction of where things need to go. That doesn’t even factor in the recreational fishermen who’d get shafted again, already having been shut out from a large number of the prime fishing zones around the islands and channel. No thanks.
If you want to support the kelp restoration and the sea life in this area look into the work of this local: https://www.fishreef.org/