3/13/2010 12:33:46 PM
From Page One: Article II. What is Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
“CMSP is a comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, BASED ON SOUND SCIENCE…”
Authors note: Article III goes on to make much ado regarding the importance of scientific knowledge and data to obtain a balanced framework for the oversight of the waters in question stating on page 2 “Scientific understanding and information are central to achieving an integrated and transparent planning process”.
From Page Eight: Article VII, Paragraph 7: “CMSP would be guided by the precautionary approach as defined in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
Authors question: So... who determines “threat” when science can’t prove there is a threat? Obama perhaps? PeTA? Also who determines "cost effective" to rectify an unscientifically provable threat? If it can't be proven as a threat by what definition will we know when the threat has been eliminated and can quit throwing money at it?
Author’s comment: With that one paragraph one might as well throw out everything that has been said so far regarding science. The bureaucracy will have the authority to ignore science… and do what it pleases buried deep within page eight of the document.
From Page Nine: Article VIII: Geographic Scope of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
“The geographic scope would include inland bays and estuaries in both coastal and Great Lakes settings. Inclusion of inland bays and estuaries is essential because of the significant ecological, social, and economic linkages between these areas with offshore areas. Additional inland areas may be included in the planning area as the regional planning bodies, described in Section IX below, deem appropriate. Regardless, consideration of inland activities would be necessary to account for the significant interaction between upstream activities and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses and ecosystem health. Likewise, consideration should also be given to activities occurring beyond the EEZ that may influence resources or activities within the EEZ.”
Author’s question with emphasis added by author: Notice those last two sentences “REGARDLESS, consideration of inland activities would be necessary to account for the significant interaction between upstream activities and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses and ecosystem health. Likewise, (regardless?), CONSIDERATION SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN TO ACTIVITIES OCCURRING BEYOND THE EEZ THAT MAY INFLUENCE RESOURCES OR ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE EEZ”
Ummm, did the task force just claim authority over everything clean to the top of the Rocky Mountains and the continental divide with that statement? Will a newly discovered energy source on the Eastern Slope of the Rockies be deemed a threat to the Great Lakes?
Before you answer, this is addressed later in the article…
“Land- based Activities and Their Relationship to CMSP
Although the geographic scope of the CMSP area in the United States would not include upland areas UNLESS A REGIONAL PLANNING BODY DETERMINES TO INCLUDE THEM, the health and well-being of the Great Lakes, our coasts, and the ocean are in large part the result of the interrelationships among land, water, air, and human activities. Effective management of environmental health and services, maritime economies, commerce, national and homeland security interests, and PUBLIC ACCESS NECESSITATE connecting land-based planning efforts with ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes planning”.
Would that be regional planning bodies as established under this program?
Unfortunately time limits me. This gets us through page ten of the 35 page proposal.