UPDATE- The comment period has been extended until January 31st. The National Marine Sanctuary Act grants permission to the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration NOAA to designate national marine sanctuaries.
The Northern Chumash Council, which is not a registered tribe but a nonprofit corporation, has proposed to NOAA to designate 7,670 square miles of ocean and 156 miles of coastline as sanctuary. Conservation groups are claiming we need to listen to the tribes and their expertise. First, this is not a registered tribe, second the Chumash Tribe, not the Northern Chumash Council, has used this area for years for recreation purposes including fishing. All of these activities will be restricted under this sanctuary designation.
Adequate studies have not been conducted to ensure this designation will protect what NOAA claims it will protect and to show the effects it will have on the economy. We know this will greatly hinder the tourism industry and NOAA needs to be held accountable for the financial loss that will occur as a result of the designation. BlueRibbon is also concerned with the lack of public involvement. It seems as only the Northern Chumash Council and conservation groups have had a place at the table during this planning process.
As we often see with the Antiquities Act, this is a complete abuse of power and conservation groups are working to lock up and restrict access to an egregious amount of land and water. This area is already protected under many layers such as the Endangered Species Act and many federal regulations for commercial fishing and recreation. This sanctuary would be located in between two other previously designated marine sanctuaries, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to the north and the Channel Islands Sanctuary to the south. On December 15, 2021 the state of California released a draft for Pathways to Achieve 30 X 30 you can read the draft and provide comment here. We are concerned NOAA will use this designation as a way to achieve the drafts goal of 30 X 30.
Submit comments on the Marine Sanctuary by January 31st.
I oppose the Chumash Marine Sanctuary. It will eliminate recreational activities for many current user groups. This is public land and should remain shared use by all user groups. It’s that simple and its your duty to protect all user groups not just the most vocal, or most politically popular, or most funded or who have the most lobbyist.
Public land should stay public and be shared by all user groups.
Exactly what Jordan said!
I am against the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. Locking up land and water does not equal freedom in the United States.
Being able to have access to recreate is vital.
Because of the covid virus variants, the public needs more, not less areas to enjoy outdoor recreation. Locking up additional lands and restricting access is counter intuitive to what the public needs. Please refrain from restricting access for “all” of the public.
My family has enjoyed responsible camping and motorized access here for decades. Please do not restrict access to this area
I urge you not to establish the proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. I have visited this area and it is a wonderful recreation site for fishing, ORV’s, camping, etc. but your proposal will diminish all of these uses and preclude many in the public from enjoying this area. Please do not proceed with this proposal.
WE ARE QUITE CONCERRNED THAT THIS MARINE SANCTUARY WILL IMPACT THE USE OF THE AREAS FOR THE FOUR WHEEL DRIVE COMMUNITY AND WISH TO BE ASSURED THAT THIS WILL NOT BE THE CASE!!
We live locally, in southern Monterey County. My family has camped in this area for 20 years. We particularly enjoy playing with our remote control vehicles on the beach. This proposal will no doubt restrict recreational access for families. We pay higher taxes, higher housing costs, and higher gas prices to live in this state we love. As we see our access to outdoor recreation shrinking in a time when it should be expanding, we are saddened and frustrated. Please reject this restrictive and mean-spirited proposal.
As a supporter of continued motorized and other recreation wherever it occurs, I oppose the proposed designation of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.
The impacts to both nature and local communities has not been fully explored and needs to be before any such designation occurs.
The sanctuary designation has been abused before and this is another instance.
Please do not do so.
Thank you.
Also a supporter of continued motorized and other recreation wherever it occurs, I oppose the proposed designation of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.
The impacts to both nature and local communities has not been fully explored and needs to be before any such designation occurs.
The sanctuary designation has been abused before and this is another instance.
Please do not do so.
I am a supporter of motorized recreation and access rights for all. There are far too many public lands in our country that already have restricted access. Please do not add to the unfair restrictions placed on those of us who enjoy the freedom to access our public lands. These restrictions also have negative impacts on local economies. Business owners have been trough enough hardship over the past two years. I oppose the proposed designation of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.
Thank you.
As an avid fisherman and outdoorsman who loves camping, off-roading, hiking, and just the beauty California has to offer, I oppose the proposed designation of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. This Sanctuary would be a great lose for our future generations, our traditions and our way of life. Not to mention the impact it will have on the Marine Fishery and the businesses that count on this 7,000 + sq mile area of ocean that will be lost forever. Please consider the countless number of jobs and people this will effect as well as the families who love this area and have been enjoying for generations.
Probably best if such designations be made by Congress with the approval of the President. NOAA is proposing significant restrictions without evaluation that includes all the stakeholders—particularly the general public.
Regards, Jonathan May
For generations, my family has been working to keep the California coastline accessible to the public. Access to much of our coast is blocked by lack of access, often by the few property owners that can buy the land adjacent to the ocean or bays. I personally was introduced to Pismo Beach by cousin Vail, who opened Vail’s Rexall Drug store there in the early 1960s.
The Oceana area is about the only place left where the general public can camp and use motor vehicles to explore coastal dunes. Hopefully this long term prized use can be maintained.
Once again, many user groups are forced to take action in opposition of an, in this case misleading group, who proposes closing access to historical use. Please consider this comment as opposition to more restrictions on access to the Oceano Dunes area. Thank you.
My family resides in Oregon and we make our way to the Oceano Dunes each year to recreate. We also travel on the Glamis Dunes for the same reason. Travel and recreation is expensive in California to say the least. We spend a great deal of money to make our annual trip.
Given the population of California, closing recreational areas will only add to the overcrowding that exists now. Please consider adding to the recreational areas instead of reducing or eliminating them.
I’m against any organization that will push for what they think is right only for the betterment of that organization. It seems the Chumash Council does not consider the impact this mission would have on those who survive from sea. Our government has already cut fishing to fewer days, smaller limits, and restricted areas. I believe in proper management to protect our fisheries, but I do not believe the Chumash Council should create a “Chumash Heritage” using the open waters needed by a greater majority.
If they are trying to lock this huge area up by disguising it with a proposal using a ethic name, then this should be a wake up call for Alaskans. You can bet this is just a warm up.
This United States belongs to all of us. Nearly every state has some little self interest group that tries to carve out a piece of the pie for themselves. Let’s leave this country open to multiple use where everyone gets a piece of the pie instead of a few.
I am opposed to the proposed restrictions and designations without proper study and sufficient public input.
Continued efforts to close off areas of historical access ignore the impacts that user groups have as they are relocated and compressed into fewer and smaller areas.
The resulting concentration of users contributes to increased conflict over the decreasing access and creates new overuse issues for remaining areas. The net result Is a spiraling effort to restrict use to address “the challenge”.
Responsible user of public lands should be celebrated and expanded, not constrained.
Please stop abusing your authority on what is to be designated as a place where can no longer enjoy the area. There is very little areas left in California for families to recreate near the ocean. Children in this generation spends as much as 9 hours online everyday. Would you want children to enjoy their precious moments with their families?
We live locally, My family has camped in this area for many years since 60’s. We particularly enjoy playing with our remote control vehicles, off-road and camping on the beach. This proposal will no doubt restrict recreational access for families. We pay higher taxes, higher housing costs, and higher gas prices to live in this state we love. As we see our access to outdoor recreation shrinking in a time when it should be expanding, we are saddened and frustrated. Please reject this restrictive and mean-spirited proposal.
100% against this. It unfairly discriminates against outdoor activities. Those of us who enjoy being in The outdoors and not sitting on the couch, would be the only ones deprived if this passes.
Let’s not take a vote from those it does not effect.
I am AGAINST the Chumash Marine Sanctuary. I think it’s disgusting how they hide behind the argument that they are trying to preserve the area by keeping from everyone. It’s a total self serving agenda.
Hello,
I Oppose this marine sanctuary in the strongest terms possible. Leave us alone let us recreate in peace.
I strongly disagree with this power grab. Easy access to the ocean and beaches is what draws many people to California. Creating another layer of red tape or paperwork to access public land is absurd.
NOAA has failed to due its due diligence in verifying the authenticity of the “Northern Chumash Tribal Council (NCTC)”. The NCTC is not federally recognized and the leaders of the NCTC have been shown to have NO Chumash blood ancestry (see attachment A). Naming this marine sanctuary after the NCTC is a disgrace to all native people and to the rule of law. The NOAA website provides open ended and very vague statements without any substance to review, verify or comment on, such as: “Numerous threats have been identified to resources within the proposed area”. What threats? Where are they? What is the basis of the claim? Where is the evidence? The NOAA website provides the following map of the proposed designation but does not give specifics of truly where it starts and where it stops. Does it start at the Mean High Tide Line? Does it extend 10 miles out to sea? It is very vague!
I am opposed to the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. It is another attempt to restrict access and use of public land.
January 31, 2022
Paul E, Michel, Regional Policy Coordinator NOAA Sanctuaries West Coast Regional Office 99 Pacific Street, Building 100F
Monterey, CA 93940
RE: Opposition to Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary designation
Dear NOAA Officials and Mr. Michel,
I write you this letter to oppose the designation of the proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA has presented this Sanctuary proposal with many inaccuracies, an absence of transparency and massive lack of due diligence.
NOAA has presented this nomination of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, based upon the most recent of multiple nominations submitted by an individual from the Northern Chumash Tribal Council. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council IS NOT a federally recognized tribe. The Northern Chumash is a nonprofit organization with zero historic tribal affiliation, designation or credibility amongst other Native Tribes and the Native American community.
NORTHERN CHUMASH TRIBAL COUNCIL (not a federally recognized tribe)
The Northern Chumash’s former spokesman and leader, Fred Collins, was not of actual Chumash or Native American decent and ancestry. The legal documents, genealogy and birth records to demonstrate this are public record and widely available. It appears that NOAA has been very badly misled by the Northern Chumash group and has failed to do the necessary homework and due diligence to properly verify the facts and vet this nonprofit’s legitimacy prior to moving forward with this nomination.
LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
It is very concerning that NOAA has kept this proposed Sanctuary process completely out of the public eye. There has been virtually zero public outreach to the communities along the central coast which this Sanctuary designation would have dramatic and devastating effects upon.
SAN YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH INDIANS (Federally Recognized Tribe)
The federally recognized Chumash tribe for this coastal area is the San Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. It is very disingenuous that NOAA has accepted this nomination from the Northern Chumash group (not a federally recognized tribe), while doing zero outreach with the tribal council for the (federally recognized) San Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.
The San Ynez Band of Chumash Indians current and historic recreational uses of these waters and coastline would only be further restricted and regulated under this proposed Sanctuary designation. Putting things into perspective, how does this Sanctuary stand to benefit the federally recognized San Ynez tribe while stripping them of even more tribal rights in the name of a nonprofit group’s quest for name recognition and legitimacy.
MORROW BAY WIND ENERGY PROJECT
It is very convenient that of the 7,670 square miles of coastal waters included in this sanctuary designation, the 400 miles of the Morrow Bay Wind Energy project would be excluded and exempt from the Sanctuary designation, regulations and environmental compliance. Offshore wind energy has been proven time and time again to have a devastating environmental impact to marine habitat, ecosystems and species protection.
Wind energy facilities are exempt from Endangered Species Act compliance and other environmental regulations, which is wrong. It seems apparent that the Sanctuary must be put into place at the expense to the public, as the sacrificial lamb to make up for the 400 square miles that the wind energy project will utterly destroy. It’s the good old trade off model. Restricting over 7,000 square miles from the public, while excluding the 400 square miles of ecological nightmare that will result from the adjacent wind energy development project. What I am hearing is that we need to protect one environment for this Sanctuary, only to pave the way to destroying another are in the name for energy development.
I strongly encourage NOAA to halt any advancement or further progress on this current proposed National Marine Sanctuary designation. NOAA has failed to perform adequate due diligence and the sufficient research necessary to give any legitimacy to the massive federal overreach of this Marine Sanctuary designation.
Sincerely,
Jared Macleod
Vice President, Friends of Oceano Dunes
V.P. of Education, California Off Road Vehicle Association (C.O.R.V.A.) aviatormacleod@gmail.com
(805) 444-8015