The Maryland Coastal Program is collecting comments for Governor Robert E. Ehrlich, Jr. to consider in the State’s response to the Preliminary Report on April 22, 2004. The comments below were submitted online as of May 5, 2004.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004
10:16 AM – Submitted by J.G.
Subject: Coordinating Management in Federal Waters
This all comes from Chapter 6, pages 65 and 66:

"At the federal level, at least five agencies must be consulted or grant permits before an aquaculture facility can
proceed"

"At the state level, each jurisdiction has its own procedures, with no uniformity among states. In fact,
continuity is sometimes lacking even within a single state-one applicant may start the process with the state
environmental protection office, another may start with the state marine fisheries agency, and a third may start
with the state agricultural office."

"Building a coordinated offshore management regime will take time."

What's my point? This "offshore management regime" will be the sixth federal agency that must be consulted. I am sure that this regime will give out a piece of paper ensuring that you have met the requirements of the other five agencies as well as the state ones. We don't need this.

"Marine protected areas can vary from restricting all activities to limiting only some uses. Examples of
activities that might be restricted include oil and gas exploration and production, dredging, dumping, certain
types of vessel traffic, fishing, and placing structures on the seabed. Marine protected areas can be set aside
permanently or temporarily and can be implemented either seasonally or year-round. Even within a marine protected area, a particular activity may be allowed in one part of the area but not in others. Marine protected
areas can be established and managed by a variety of agencies at the federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local
levels, pursuant to a number of authorities."

Don't we already do this? I am pretty sure that this is already accomplished through many existing laws and regulations.

This entire chapter creates nothing. It is going to govern existing laws and purposively make them easier to understand and adhere to. I disagree, if anything more money should be given to DNRs and States to manage what laws currently exist. We already work with other States in protecting areas that are important to endangered species.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004
9:53 AM – Submitted by J.G.
Subject: Enhancing Ocean Leadership and Coordination
ADDRESSING ISSUES CROSSING JURISDICTIONAL LINES
"Even though many pressing ocean and coastal issues take place on a regional scale, today's governance system is not designed to cross traditional political boundaries."
Today, 05 May 2004, I heard on the news that the States surrounding the Chesapeake Bay are going to congress to make it National Landmark. Seems to me that we are working together pretty well outside "political boundaries". Even the second paragraph of this section denotes how grassroots initiatives are making things happen. We do not need an agency to do this.

Get this:
"Regional ocean councils, when voluntarily established under the process set forth by the National Ocean Council, may perform some or all of the following functions:
* designating ad hoc subcommittees to examine issues of regional concern.
* mediating and resolving disputes among entities within the region.
*developing more formal mechanisms for implementing decisions, such as interagency agreements, interstate compacts, or limited waivers of regulatory requirements.
*monitoring and evaluating the state of the region and the effectiveness of management efforts.
*building public awareness about regional ocean and coastal issues.
*facilitating required government approvals or permitting processes that involve several federal, state, and
local government agencies within the region."

This looks to me like this agency creates little agencies that will tell States what to do with regards to State lands that border oceans/bays. States through there elected officials should already, and in my opinion are, doing this.

"In addition to enhancing decision-making, regional ecosystem assessments would improve the process
mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires federal agencies to prepare
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for proposed major activities. Currently, each agency must conduct
an individual assessment of the state of the environment to determine the impact of a proposed activity or
related set of activities. The development of a single, scientifically-based regional ecosystem assessment would
reduce this duplication of effort and help ensure that every EIS is based on similar, comprehensive, and
timely information about the region." NEPA process does not need any enhancing. An EA can take anywhere from 6 months to a year. This time will be increased if more agencies were to review it.

"A comprehensive and periodically updated regional ecosystem assessment that
analyzes the status of the affected region, establishes baselines of ocean and coastal ecosystem health, and
describes existing and potential impacts from a range of human activities will enhance decision makers' ability
to analyze cumulative impacts." We do not need a periodically updated report. Every project is looked at the immediate time. Reviewing what the site may have been or what it could be will destroy important time for project and increase the cost of them. NEPA is already the answer.

"Recommendation 5-4. The Council on Environmental Quality should revise its National
Environmental Policy Act guidelines to require that environmental impact statements for proposed
ocean- and coastal-related activities take into account any available regional ecosystem assessments
developed under the oversight of the regional ocean information programs." No it should not. This would be detrimental to the mission of the armed forces in doing training. EIS take forever to write and execute.

I do not like the region that they put us in either. I believe that there should be a "Mid Atlantic Region" comprised of PA, DE, MD, VA and NC.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004
8:52 AM – Submitted by L.B.
Subject: Recognizing Ocean Assets and Challenges
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report
Chapter 1
Page 14. Natural Hazards
Footnote 63
Why do we reward people for building along natural tidal islands and sea shores? These areas have been over-swept for millions of years and will continue to be as long as the earth and moon exist. Beach replenishment is an unnatural act defying nature.
Storms will continue to create economic losses along seashores and all we do to stop it will be in vain. Better environmental policy would be to restrict development to preexisting areas and allow no additional development along tidal areas. As long as governments support and encourage the development of seashores and tidal areas the further economic losses will occur at a greater pace. If the government and the insurance industry failed to cover losses along these areas it would create a disincentive to own these properties. National seashores is the best idea to allow the public to use the beach and locate businesses away from the tidal or flood plains.
Page 15. Climate Change
Footnote 64-67
There are just as many studies that indicate global warming is not occurring. The invasive species issue is of greater concern to the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways. Islands are subject to the rise and fall of the sea level and it has occurred during all recorded history.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004
8:33 AM – Submitted by J.G.
Subject: Setting the Nation's Sights
Chapter 3, page 32 paragraph 2. The U.S. is the best country in math, science and technology. Sentence should be written as "In order for the U.S. to stay in the top ranks in math, science and technology."

Also, same paragraph, the word "workforce" should not be able to set policies. Policies can be submitted to the states or congress for review and then made into law/policy.

Ecosystem-based Management: Last sentence; "Applying this principle will require defining relevant geographic management areas based on ecosystems, rather than political, boundaries." I would do away with "rather than political" because it denotes that this agency may decide what an environmental area is without regard to what the state believes.

Page 33, Understandable Laws and Clear Decisions: Laws should be voted on by the people or left up to those that are elected by the people. An agency should not have the right to create laws.

Page 33-34, last sentence "rather than political" should be deleted

Page 35 4th paragraph, change "ameliorate" to improve. If we are to make this understandable to the common people, like this thing implies, then lets use 10 cent words instead of two dollar words.

Page 35 5th paragraph, this is stating that we intend to spend a lot of my money and we don't even know if it will work.

The scientific assessments should be conducted by a bipartisan group of science researchers. The group should not be made up of left/right wing environmental groups.

"Managers" should not have the right to say proceed or not. Elected officials, representing the public should have this right.

Science for Decision-making. Paragraph 7, It states, "The nation lacks effective mechanisms for incorporating scientific information into decision-making processes in a timely manner." I disagree with this statement. Any project to be done by a contractor be it private or government, must meet strict environmental laws set up by the State or the Federal Government. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a great example of this.

Paragraph 8 "Increased investment will help restore the pre-eminence of U.S. ocean capabilities, which has eroded since the end of the Cold War." It looks like more taxes are being called for. If money would be transferred from other agencies or programs I would be agreeable to that. No more taxes at this time. Creating an agency to do what the EPA should be doing or is already doing is in itself wrong. Also, why do we mention the Cold War.? Why not come up with a year. On the other hand the environmental awareness of everyone I know or have read about has increased since the end of the Cold War.

Page 38, Public Education (first paragraph of this section). More people are in-tune to the environment than ever before, to include the oceans. America is not threatened. If anything we should raise the education levels back to what they were. Higher standards are needed not higher taxes.

Page 40, first paragraph. We do not "instill a stewardship ethic in the American People" by creating another agency with more laws that are unable to be policed. We do it by education in schools and the work place and by giving existing agencies better resources to police existing laws.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004
7:59 AM – Submitted by J.G.
Subject: Setting the Nation's Sights
Chapter 3, page 31 (Imagining a brightful future), paragraph 2. Currently the oceans and coasts are clean. This paragraph makes it sound as if the coast and oceans are filthy. Recommend that clean and safe be changed to cleaner and safer.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004
7:57 AM – Submitted by J.G.
Subject: Recognizing Ocean Assets and Challenges
Chapter 1, page 15, first paragraph beginning with "One of the most immediate". It states that global warming is a fact. It is not a fact. It is a belief that certain people have. As many scientists that agree with it there is an equal or greater number against it. I would delete this and the following 3rd paragraph.

If you look at footnotes 72,73, and 74 you will find, in my opinion, that global warming is a matter of the writers opinion.
 

---

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report

This page was last up-dated on May 05, 2004