Shore Notice

And another opportunity to comment to the DNR–

What the Coastal Resources Division has put together as an assessment of whether or not the objectives of Section 309 of some unidentified federal (?) law or directive have been met is pure gobbledigook and a perfect example of why government planning and management are in poor odour with the public. This draft is in need of a complete re-write, beginning with the first paragraph:

Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act identifies nine Program Enhancement Areas, including: wetlands, coastal hazards, public access, marine debris, cumulative and secondary impacts, ocean resources, energy and government facility siting, aquaculture and Special Area Management Plans. Every five years, coastal states are encouraged to conduct a self-assessment of their coastal management programs to assess the effectiveness of current efforts to address known or identified problems. The Georgia Coastal Management Program (GCMP) recently completed an assessment its Program and identified problems and opportunities for each of the enhancement areas; determined the effectiveness of the Program’s existing efforts to address problems for each of the enhancement objectives; and identified priority needs for Program enhancements for the period 2016 to 2020.
“enhancement” generally refers to making something bigger. So, right off, one is left with the question whether programs or some other “areas” are to be enlarged. If the latter, then the categories are not parallel. While we might want to “enhance” the extent of our wetlands, we’re surely not looking for more hazards (to shipping?) or debris.
Now, it is quite possible that whatever body issued the Coastal Zone Management Act was/is confused. If so, then one might argue that the responses solicited from the states are intended to correct mistakes. That’s not going to be accomplished with a report that has, apparently, not even been proof read to address grammatical errors and words left out.

“The Georgia Coastal Management Program (GCMP) recently completed an assessment its Program” is both ungrammatical and nonsensical. A program cannot assess itself, or anything else, for that matter.

Finally, here’s a paragraph that nicely encapsulates the attitudes of the authors of this screed:

Stakeholder engagement included outreach to the Coastal Advisory Council to the GA Coastal Management Program and while respondents ranked this as a high priority area, the responses indicated that the biggest need to address this enhancement area is research and outreach and education. We feel that these issues are best addressed through the existing Technical Assistance program and wetlands program staff, and through our partnerships with research institutions.

Even though it’s called “Coastal Management,” propagandizing the public is the strategy that’s preferred. All talk; no action.

Although I am a person who normally prides herself on reading everything from beginning to end, reading what the Coastal Resources Division has put forth in this instance would be a total waste of time. Bad enough that we’ve already wasted money on staff to put it out.

Monica Smith