I just got done reading some of the latest comments... The opposition is mobilizing, and bringing it strong... They are getting all kinds of environmental committee members to show how bad PWCs are. Check out some of the negative messages I found, and it does NOT stop here:
"Dear NOAA, I am in full support of expanding the size of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries. As this is a sanctuary for wildlife, the rules must state that wildlife must not be disturbed. As such, all motorized water craft must be banned. All fishing and taking of wildlife must be banned. Humans can be permitted only if they tread quietly and lightly. The world doesn't belong to humans. Let's give some space on this highly polluted planet back to wildlife. "
"
People were stunned to see proposed huge areas set aside for MPWC. These should be called “Wildlife Destruction Zones”. It has always been widely understood that any major changes to the regulations would occur after the establishment of the expanded Sanctuary. That would have been the effect of the legislation that was working its way through Congress. In December 2012 White House officials agreed with key California Congressional members that NOAA would adopt the legislation as a basis for an administrative procedure. As can been seen by the recent testimony at the regulatory hearings all those congressional members understood that major regulatory matters would be considered within a two year period AFTER the new boundaries were established.
So, it was anticipated there would be an 18-month period for expansion and then a two-year period for regulatory review. NOAA now takes the position that the two-year period was to run concurrently ignoring the fact that it would obviate the two-year agreement since all would be accomplished in 18 months.
It should also be noted that the GFNMS Advisory Council on May 1, 2014 passed a resolution urging the Sanctuary not to include MPWC regulations in the expansion regulations. This is not a mere “housekeeping” or “tweaking” of existing regulations. This is a huge issue with major impacts on the environment. No one saw it coming. There was no discussion of this possible “bombshell” by Sanctuary staff during the scoping meetings. Comments were mostly non-existent. Huge issues like this could cause such public consternation that it could jeopardize expansion.
This is too complex an issue to be decided by a proposed rule (out of the blue), brief public comment and then issuance of a final rule. There are seven very detailed proposed areas. The DEIS is extremely brief on the environment, current usage or reasons for the areas. There are no cited references used in their analysis of the current or future uses of these areas. Creating these huge areas and publicizing them may lead to hoards of jet skiers now coming to these once pristine sites turning them into weekend wildlife destruction zones.
This abbreviated regulatory process is not appropriate for the North Coast of California. An agency issuing proposed regulations, having a couple hearings of a couple hours, then retreating back to their offices and throwing their final decision out over the transom to a public waiting with pitchforks and flaming torches is not the way we do things here. It may be what Washington D.C. does but that sort of bureaucratic arrogance does not sit well here.
First we were "wahoos". Now we are just public with pitchforks and flaming torches. Where does this stop? When will these know-it-all self-appointed protectors of wildlife stop insulting everyone and actually start thinking for a change?
Keep 'em coming guys, it's going to be a long 18 days...
.
