Sure, we caught the piece in the USA Today this week about how salaries for U.S. government workers have jumped a staggering 46 percent during “the worst recession since the Great Depression,” as President Obama describes it.

And sure, like you, our first reaction was to be a bit taken back – what, with a full 20 percent of the federal workforce now making in excess of $100,000 a year, and the average federal wage $30,000 a year more than what the average private sector employee takes home. Did we mention that 15 million Americans are currently out of work?

But hey: At least some of these taxpayer-funded employees have been working their tails off lately, right?

Consider the case of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A previously obscure sub-agency of a third-tier cabinet office, NOAA made news twice this week: First, for putting out an impressive, 32-page document establishing a formal process for re-zoning offshore energy development off the map in this nation; and second, for getting some serious loot appropriated its way by Congress. E&E News has the details:

The omnibus allots more than $4.7 billion for NOAA, which would be the largest budget ever for the oceans and climate science agency. The nearly 9 percent increase is a greater spending boost than either the House bill or the White House had requested.

Yikes — NOAA got more cash from Congress than the administration even wanted? But at least we know what the agency will be spending it on.  Almost three months to the day after NOAA first published its “interim report” on the feasibility of establishing a nebulous “Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force,” it was back at it again this week – promulgating a formal “framework” for implementing its “marine spatial planning” policy. Its purpose? To “improve ecosystem health and services by planning human uses in concert with the conservation of important ecological areas.” Orwell would doubtless be proud.

Of course, none of this should be considered unexpected – both the September “task force” document and the new NOAA administrator herself have been clear in declaring the ultimate intent of this bureaucratic exercise. Heck, Administrator Lubchenco didn’t even try to keep this a secret when asked to testify about her plans before the House Natural Resources Committee in September, remember?

The head of [NOAA] strongly opposes ocean planning and aquaculture provisions in a sweeping House bill focused on overhauling the federal royalty system. …

Lubchenco said the bill’s ocean use provisions should be considered as part of a more comprehensive plan. …

“As urgent as energy needs are today, a broader strategy that recognizes the importance of energy along with other critical uses of oceans is more likely to produce long-lasting benefit to the nation,” Lubchenco told the Natural Resources Committee.

Might not seem like much of a scolding to you, but trust us – Chairman Rahall got served.

Thankfully, and as we’ve written on this blog in the past, some folks understand the severity of the gathering threat before us, and are starting to take positive steps to inform their friends, neighbors and constituents of the serious implications associated with this policy becoming law.

In October, 69 members of Congress – 59 Republicans, 10 Democrats – wrote a letter to the White House detailing their concerns with the NOAA plan. And just last month, AIF’s Barney Bishop took the pages of the Bradenton Herald to lay out his case for why “NOAA’s arc,” such as it is, is a bad deal for Florida:

The plan calls for nothing less than the “zoning” of our ocean areas, treating vast expanses of submerged federal tracts as if they were blight on a city block. You want to get rid of an undesirable business down the street that’s been making too much noise? Zone it off the map. You want to make sure that no energy exploration is allowed? Do the same.

And make no mistake: that’s what this thing is really about here. Lots of folks in the federal government – very many of whom earning in excess of $100,000 a year – would prefer to shut down all forms of energy development offshore. They just don’t trust the Interior Department to do it. The solution? Have NOAA do the dirty work for ‘em, all in the name of “sound science.”

That’s the plan, at least. Any chance you’d have any interest in commenting on it?

UPDATE: We see from a quick search of the interwebs that the inestimable Dave Harbour over at Northern Gas Pipelines has commented extensively on this Marine Spatial Planning scheme as well. As you can see, he’s been tracking this thing like a bulldog from the start.

Just about everyone in America not living in the city of Houston knows that local planning and zoning ordinances are a basic fact of life.

But what would happen if the federal government attempted to apply those same local rules to 1.76 billion acres offshore? Carving up our oceans as if they were city blocks – using the same system to prevent domestic energy exploration as the anti-development crowd uses to defeat the local Wal-Mart. Sounds outrageous, right?

If you thought the Department of the Interior was bad, wait until you get a load of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). An office run directly out of the White House, CEQ has teamed up with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to put forward a new “science-based” approach to regulating our nation’s oceans. The eggheads at NOAA call this thing “marine spatial planning.” All you need to know is that it will result in less access to less energy (and fishing, and tourism opportunities) along America’s outer continental shelf.

Thankfully, if news out of Washington, D.C. is any indication, our elected leaders on Capitol Hill aren’t letting this scam go unnoticed. Led by coastal state representatives and Alaska’s own Don Young, 69 members of the House (59 Republicans, 10 Democrats) sent a letter to CEQ head Nancy Sutley this week demanding an explanation for why they’re doing this, and a clarification on just how many jobs we expect to lose under a policy that bigfoots Interior on offshore management policy. From the AP:

Dozens of U.S. representatives sent a letter Monday to the head of the President’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force with concerns that the policy will block offshore energy development and cost jobs.

Sixty-nine House members, including Alaska Rep. Don Young, signed the letter in which they responded to the task force’s interim report released last month.

We’d be remiss here if we didn’t mention the role that NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco is playing in all this. Previously a big-time marine professor at Oregon State, Ms. Lubchenco has written extensively in the past about “our unsustainable use of resources,” the “explosive growth of the human population,” and the “social compact” that “exploiters” such as fishermen and other commercial interests violate daily.

So spare us the press release, please. There can be little doubt that the new NOAA administrator is using this plan to initiate massive changes in the way Americans access their energy offshore – despite what’s being said about the plan publicly.

Here’s an excerpt from the House letter that address these specific points:

We are particularly concerned about the Task Force’s impact on our nation’s ability to safely develop its own offshore energy, including oil, natural gas and renewable energy.  It is critical that the Task Force’s proposals do not inhibit energy activity offshore in domestic waters and undermine the Department of the Interior’s Five Year Leasing Program for offshore energy development.

So, where does any of this leave us today? Tough to say. The oceans plan was recently put up for public comment for a measly 30 days – roughly 210 days fewer than the Interior Department’s five-year energy plan was available to comment on by the American public. How did that comment period end up? CEQ won’t say. We wonder why that is.