Ocean Zoning Discussion Forum

There are currently 1,700 MPAs, designated and managed by federal, State, territorial and local agencies. Effectively balancing oil and gas development and production while ensuring the avoidance of harm to the environment becomes an overwheling task for the Department of the Interior. Would each (MPA) exploration case be examined in a case-by-case basis and how would decisions be made. The Department of the Interior would have to make a decision as to which is the current highest priority (i) oil and gas development and production, or (ii) avoiding harm to natural and cultural resources. From an administrative standpoint is does not seem feasible to have to manage this process by each MPA or to have the responsibility placed to both explore and “avoid harm” as I do not think this would be possible.

Posted by Seth Brecher, D.C. Teaching Fellows and Masters Degree Candidate in Higher Education at George Washington University

As indicated on page 2 of the CRE report, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13158 on May 26, 2000. In May 2000, the approximate price of crude oil was $35.00 a barrel (inflation adjusted) and the stocl market was soaring with the Dow at approximately 11,000. Additionally, the geopolitical climate, in particular, America’s relationships with oil producing nations (e.g. Venezuela, Iran, etc.) was very different than it is today. I would argue, in fact, that when the D.C. Circuit Court ruled in 1981 in “State of California ex rel Brown” that development of oil and gas resources on the OCS must be considered the primary objective of the act, the economic and geopolitical climate of the time (1981) is more similiar to the one we face in 2009 that when President Clinton signed Executive Order 13158 in May 2000. As a nation, our current economic and geopolitical climate are far different than just nine years ago. In fact, I would argue, that when looking at legal precedent the D.C. Court ruling in 1981 is far more relevant than the E.O. 13158 given the current challenges the U.S. faces. I favor environmental concern and the limitation of “harm” to natural resources during the exploration process. However, I do not believe it is realistic to expect to “avoid harm” to the environment during this process. Unfortunately, effective exploration and some harm or disruptions to the environment are mutually exclusive.

The appended is “A Legal Perspective on the ‘Avoid Harm’ Provision of E.O. 13158.” I support any efforts to ensure the continued viability of the marine protected areas, and I also favor industrial development of America’s natural resources. I offer this paper to ensure that your legal arguments are sound when you go to Court, regardless of your perspective on environmental protection vs. development (if there has to be a “versus”).

-Catherine Park, Esq.

Legal Perspective on EO 13158.doc (48 KB)

This is an interesting area of research and law. The sample size of the studies, for example, 12 or 20 sperm whales, seem to be too small to extrapolate to the whale community at large. Also, are these whales from a singular pod, are they related? Is there a leader of this group? If so, any avoidance of the noises, or lack of avoidance could be due to the preferences of the leader, which would mean the studies are based on one whale, or whales that are related in any case. Also, my understanding is that sperm whales dive deep to catch their prey so the surface noises would seem to have little, if any, effect on the foraging or deep-sea fishing, if you will, of the sperm whale. It seems more studies are needed to determine the effects, if any of the noises on the whales.

Scott Madsen, esq. I have practiced environmental law since 1998 involving (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the TSCA, RCRA and CERCLA.

Herein I provide “Considerations regarding NOAA’s Proposed System of Marine Protected Areas: A review of recent comments from the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.”
— Steve Nelson

MPA_Considerations.doc (354 KB)

CRE has sent the attached comments to the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) in response to their Federal Register notice requesting public input on their updating of the 2007 document, “Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for
the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy.”

CRE requested that OSTP make all comments public as soon as possible so that they can be posted on the Ocean Zoning IPD. Once the comments are posted, CRE will invite all interested persons to comment on the public submissions. CRE will prepare a public report based on: 1) the comments sent to OSTP; and 2) the discussion of those comments on the IPD.

CRE Charting the Course Comments.pdf (63 KB)

CRE invites public comment on the following paper, attached hereto,  which will provide one basis for CRE supplying comments to MMS on its five year OCS program.

Short comments can be submitted by clicking on comments below; more detailed comments, particuarly if there is an attachment thereto, should be presented as a separate submission by “Submit a Post” to the right.

You can append an attachment to your separate submission by clicking on “Browse” to the right, which will allow you to download a file from your documents section.

MMS MPA Five Year Plan Conflict ….pdf (114 KB)

CRE invites public comment on the following paper, attached hereto,  which will provide one basis for CRE supplying comments to MMS on its five year OCS program.

Short comments can be submitted by clicking on comments below; more detailed comments, particuarly if there is an attachment thereto, should be presented as a separate submission by “Submit  a Post” to the right.

You can append an attachment to your separate submission by clicking on “Browse” to the right, which will allow you to download a file from your documents section.