Concerns regarding the proposed Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary regulations

[Shipwreckworld]

 

Within a few weeks NOAA will post on the National Register their proposed plan for the Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary which covers a portion of eastern Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. 

We understand that NOAA will only post their regulations for the proposed sanctuary after the public comments have been closed in early September.  

If the new proposed regulations for the Lake Ontario marine sanctuary are similar to those posted for the proposed Wisconsin marine sanctuary* then they will create the following:

1)      Restrictions on fishing in areas near shipwreck and shipwreck wreckage sites

2)      Restrictions and possible permit requirements for tethered devices which could include underwater drones, towed surveying equipment, fish cams etc.

3)      Anchoring restrictions near shipwreck wreckage sites

4)      Other restrictions still unknown to the public

By not publishing regulations with the proposed Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary plan, NOAA is preventing the public from reviewing and possibly objecting or commenting on them during the public meetings to be held in mid-August.

 

What is NOAA trying to hide from the public?

 

Please let’s hear your comments – we will pass them along to NOAA.  

Or you can inform NOAA ([email protected]) directly how you feel about this decision to post regulations only after the time for public comments on the Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary plan is closed.

*Reference: Section 5.4.1:  Proposed Wisconsin - Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan (windows.net)  

[Tall Tails]

We have been told no restrictions on recreational fishing.  Those fishing restrictions are for the net boats and long liners in the ocean.  No concern of ours.  We desperately need this to keep the windmills out of the lake.  With the sanctuary in place they cant build the windmills.  You want to talk restrictions if the windmills come there will be no fishing within 1500 feet of any of them.

[jimski2]

Wind mill farms off Germany and Denmark tie up areas of up to fifty square miles,  not a 1500 foot circle area.

[Tall Tails]

1 hour ago, jimski2 said:

Wind mill farms off Germany and Denmark tie up areas of up to fifty square miles,  not a 1500 foot circle area.

Well if you do the math on 150 turbines and the circumference on those that is about 50 square miles... I was referencing one windmill... 

[Shipwreckworld]

The marine sanctuary designation would not prevent the development of off-shore windmills. 

The Public Service Commission is in charge of decisions concerning windmills. 

The New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation would also be involved.

This situation has been previously fact checked with NYS.

 

The point of this post is that NOAA does not intend to provide the public with their proposed regulations at the time they announce the plans for the Lake Ontario marine sanctuary and then only after public comments have been closed. That is not right so what regulations does NOAA want to hide from the public?

[Tall Tails]

10 hours ago, Shipwreckworld said:

The marine sanctuary designation would not prevent the development of off-shore windmills. 

The Public Service Commission is in charge of decisions concerning windmills. 

The New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation would also be involved.

This situation has been previously fact checked with NYS.

 

The point of this post is that NOAA does not intend to provide the public with their proposed regulations at the time they announce the plans for the Lake Ontario marine sanctuary and then only after public comments have been closed. That is not right so what regulations does NOAA want to hide from the public?

Shipwrecked lets make sure we provide the public with accurate information.  It would not allow windmills as foundations being built inside the sanctuary designation area would not be allowed.  I know several of the folks on the local committee that have had substantial input into the process.  The process has been very open to this point.  Why do you have an axe to grind with NOAA?   

[Shipwreckworld]

Tall Tails unfortunately the information you have been told regarding the sanctuary preventing off-shore windmills is not correct.  I am a member of the sanctuary Advisory Committee and have been in direct contact with New York State officials that would be involved in off-shore windmills. They have stated that the sanctuary would not prevent future off-shore windmills from being constructed.

 

The point of this post is not about windmills but the fact that NOAA does not want to be upfront with the public with their proposed regulations at the time they announce the plans for the Lake Ontario marine sanctuary and then submit them only after all public comments are closed in September.  What sanctuary regulations is NOAA attempting to hide and from public comment?

[Scalloper 1]

NOAA is one of the most corrupt government organizations period. They lie cheat and steal and are never held accountable for their corruption. In 2010 they lost $14,000,000 of fine money collected from fines assessed to fishermen. After a brief investigation it was found that there has not been one case of a fisherman beating a case in court, not one. How can that be? And they did find some of the $14,000,000 spent on a luxury yacht as well as European family vacations for employees. Call and commercial or recreational fisherman on the East or West coast and ask them about NOAA 

[LongLine]

Apparently each Sanctuary has an advisory committee that sets the rules & makes recommendations to NOAA. Big-O committee has reps from: Tourism, Shoreline owners, Rec. fishing, Rec boating, Maritime history, Education Economic development (which is the one I worry about), Divers clubs & 'citizens at large." NOAA and NYS would have to agree to regulations and share management of the area.  Appears they're looking for input to determine their recommendations.  So Okay, here's some: 

 

Appears the purpose is to protect Maritime history.  i.e shipwrecks cannot be disturbed in any manner. Regards fishing: you can't anchor near a wreck, can't entangle a net on one.  I imagine it would be frowned upon if you hit one with a downrigger ball.  

 

Regarding windmills:  According to the Federal Register and 71 FR 4898 (pgs 4898=4903) "Continued presence of commercial submarine cable beneath or on the seabed" is prohibited UNLESS a Special Use Permit (SUP)is issued.  As I see it, basically a SUP can be issued as long as Maritime history is undisturbed; enhances education and research; or provides "public benefit". ("Public benfit" has always been controversial in NYS)  Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary (in the ocean off Mass.) was issued an SUP for its cables, albeit fiber optic cables. I don't know much about Thunder Bay or the proposed one in Michigan.

 

Also Re windmills, I imagine foundations and maintenance of them and the cables would be problematic, especially as many of the shipwreck sites are unknown. Foundations are huge. We all know there are some fantastic currents in Big-O.  What effect would a multitude of foundations have on the currents & silt deposit on Big-O? We all know that some silt from the Genny ends up in Henderson.  What effect would it (disruption) have on the shipwrecks?  NYSDEC, USGS & Army Corps have all dodged the question of currents and temperature regimes on Big-O, in the past. 

 

In addition, other questions I have (that'll probably be dodged): what effect does plan 2014 have on the sites?  Shouldn't the water level be tightly regulated for better preservation?  How about the freighters?  Shouldn't their ballast regulations be tightened?  They already brought in Quaggas & Zebras which are covering many sites in Big-O.  What else are they going to bring in? (Feds already messed that up by disallowing NYS freighter ballast regs a few years ago)

 

I'd prefer the entire south shore be a sanctuary provided Recreational salmon/trout fishing (rod/reel) continues as is, no SUP ever issued for windmills, water levels better regulated, & ballast laws be revisited.

 

Guess my rant is over.

 

Tom B.
(LongLine)

[SmilinEd1]

I've always felt that the expansion of any government agency anywhere has not been beneficial to the supposed beneficiaries...

 

  

[jimski2]

I've always felt that the expansion of any government agency anywhere has not been beneficial to the supposed beneficiaries...
 
  

Some unknown Federal Agency is auctioning off underwater sites for windmill farms construction. The secret auctions happen without public knowledge, just keeping the public out of the comments so the auction money is in the banks first.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

[garrymny]

I'm in the FAA, and our regulations always have to have. NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) period where the regulation is published, along with background information, and public comments are gathered. Then, FAA publishes an answer to the public comments, and answers why or why not it is adopting the comments. Why doesn't NOAA have a similar requirement?

Tall Tails unfortunately the information you have been told regarding the sanctuary preventing off-shore windmills is not correct.  I am a member of the sanctuary Advisory Committee and have been in direct contact with New York State officials that would be involved in off-shore windmills. They have stated that the sanctuary would not prevent future off-shore windmills from being constructed.
 
The point of this post is not about windmills but the fact that NOAA does not want to be upfront with the public with their proposed regulations at the time they announce the plans for the Lake Ontario marine sanctuary and then submit them only after all public comments are closed in September.  What sanctuary regulations is NOAA attempting to hide and from public comment?

Sent from my moto z3 using Lake Ontario United mobile app