The advisory council for the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary generally accepted a suite of recommendations to add more overflight zones over sanctuary waters in Marin and Sonoma.
At a meeting last Wednesday at the Dance Palace, the council also decided to leave the question of whether Tomales Bay should become a low overflight zone to the sanctuary superintendent. In addition, the council expressed reservations about some broader recommendations for existing zones made by a working group that has been studying the issue for over a year.
Now the council’s recommendations, along with questions and concerns that arose at the meeting, will be sent to sanctuary staff, who will decide which to pursue. That will set off an environmental review process that will involve agency consultation and public comment.
“We will definitely go through each and every recommendation and figure out what we can do [and seek more information on the ideas when needed],” sanctuary superintendent Maria Brown said at the meeting.
Low overflight zones were first established by the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration in the ’80s and ’90s over four West Coast marine sanctuaries: the Farallones, Channel Islands, Monterey Bay and Olympic Coast. The zones aim to protect sensitive wildlife by establishing minimum altitudes, typically 1,000 feet, over waters where animals concentrate in heavy numbers, particularly for breeding. The zones were finally listed on Federal Aviation Administration aeronautical charts, which pilots use to navigate, in 2012.
In Marin, zones already exist at a number of locations, such as the mouth of Tomales Bay and Double Point in Bolinas. Most of the proposed zones are along the coast, such as one that would connect two existing areas in Point Reyes and Bolinas. But a new zone over all of Tomales Bay, seen as critically important by some environmental groups, is uniquely inland and subject to more flights.
Tomales Bay was the most contentious zone discussed by the working group and the only potential zone for which no firm recommendation was made.
“This is an area where [working group members] split,” said Marshall resident and group chair George Clyde. From the point of view of the pilots in the group, he said, Tomales Bay was different: because it isn’t coastal and pilots are more likely to want to fly over it.
Andy Wilson, a pilot who sat on the group, said during the public comment period last Wednesday that the members of the group “learned a lot from each other.” Still, the pilots “prefer outreach, not expansion.” He said that the online posting of the recommendations has already led pilots to contact him, which he framed as proof that outreach works.
A letter written by Mr. Wilson and the other pilots on the group expressed fear that safety issues could arise in the cockpit with more restrictions on flying.
But other members of the working group—including Mr. Clyde, who donned an Audubon Canyon Ranch hat as he spoke—favor new overflight rules on the bay, as do groups like the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin.
Ashley Gibbs, the E.A.C.’s conservation director, said during public comment that Tomales Bay is “a special reserve” with a “multitude of human disturbances…Reducing the harm from low-flying planes is critical.”
Bob Johnston, an Inverness resident, echoed that sentiment. “Most flights over Tomales Bay are discretionary. But the bay is not discretionary for the birds and mammals,” he said.
Mr. Johnson noted that the working group’s recommendations exempt low flights that are “necessary for pilot safety [in] unanticipated weather.” The recommendations state that coastal weather is “prone to a ‘marine layer’ with the potential to change numerous times throughout the day and that fog can cause visibility problems.
A handful of other groups—the East Shore Planning Group, the Marin County Board of Supervisors, the Inverness Association and Point Blue Conservation Science—support new zones on the coast and in Tomales Bay, according to comment letters to the sanctuary.
But a long list of pilots lambasted the recommendations and the proposed new zones, arguing that there is no significant evidence to show that low aircraft cause widespread harm. In comment letters to the sanctuary, they wrote that numerous other sources of disturbance—such as from kayaks or even other animals—exist and that NOAA has no right to regulate airspace.
“Does adherence to the ‘precautionary principle’ mean that if one bird or seal ever looks up at an airplane or bobs its head you are justified in restricting the entire coastline?” one retired pilot wrote.
Because of its internal split, the working group presented two options: conduct pilot outreach and education on wildlife in the area or establish a new regulatory zone, an option that would also include education and outreach.
The council did not elect to take a stance. “Let’s pass that on to Maria to struggle with,” council member John Largier said.
Much of Wednesday’s meeting focused on recommendations for current and proposed zones. Those included studying drone use in the sanctuary and adding a staff position to conduct pilot outreach and education. Some suggestions came under particular scrutiny. For instance, the working group recommended that all overflights zones, typically extending 1.5 miles offshore, be only 1,000 feet wide. The working group decided 1.5 miles was unnecessarily large and caused pilots to dismiss the zones “because it’s excessive,” Mr. Clyde explained.
Jerry Chesney, a scientist with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and a working group member, said 1,000 feet seemed adequate.
But for Richard Charter, a member of the council, the change seemed too big. “Somehow we got from 1.5 miles to 1,000 feet,” he remarked, adding that the sanctuary should consider a half-mile as a compromise or just maintain the current width.
Another suggestion, to change markings for overflight zones and sanctuary boundaries on F.A.A. aeronautical charts, drew concerns over whether the council should take positions on chart design, given its lack of experience in that area.
Finally, a recommendation to study drone use and to possibly regulate them more closely drew a comment from Inverness resident Richard James, who runs a blog call the Coastodian. He said he supported the recommendations but noted that drones are helpful in documenting debris in the bay, a hot topic on his blog.
Mr. James hopes that permits for drones, “in the hands of a skilled and conscientious person,” would be allowed for monitoring trash.