Ocean management legislation passes Senate

[flatts1]

I'm surprised I haven't seen any discussion of this anywhere online.

I looked over a copy from Senator Bruce Tarr's office and it doesn't appear to be materially different than the version that so many in the recreational community fought so hard against last year. Yet it passed unanimously this year in the Senate.

Anyone have any thoughts good, bad, or indifferent, as it heads to the House.

Best,
Mike F.
Wareham, MA

==============================================


Ocean management legislation passes Senate
September 28, 2007

BOSTON — The state would create a first-in-the-nation ocean management plan to restrict uses such as wind energy and liquefied natural gas terminals under legislation the Senate passed unanimously Thursday.

The bill, which passed 33-0, now heads to the House of Representatives, where it was not voted on last year after clearing the Senate late in the session.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Robert O'Leary, D-Barnstable, would not affect the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound, which is proposed for federal waters. The bill applies to state projects within 3 miles of the coast, so it would affect a Quincy developer's proposal to put as many as 120 wind turbines in Buzzards Bay.

In a speech to the Senate, Sen. O'Leary said the legislation would allow the state to determine where uses are appropriate in state waters before developers apply. The plan would set performance standards, mitigation requirements or limits on uses in different areas of the coast.

"We have proposals right now that call for LNG facilities, offshore wind, deep-water aquaculture, sea mining and, of course, our traditional uses, fishing," Sen. O'Leary said. "All of these are in competition with one another. We need to develop a forward-looking, prospective way of dealing with these issues."

The plan would be overseen by the secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, currently Ian Bowles. The plan would be completed within two years, with input from a 16-member advisory commission and a separate scientific council.

The advisory commission would include representatives of government, environmental organizations and commercial and sport fishing.

"Massachusetts has an opportunity to be a national leader in supporting our historic fishing communities, while balancing growing interests in our marine resources in a manner that protects our environment," Mr. Bowles said in a statement. "The Senate took an important step in that direction today. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Legislature as this bill continues through the legislative process."

Sen. O'Leary worked on the bill with Sen. Bruce E. Tarr, R-Gloucester. The legislation was co-sponsored by Sen. Mark C.W. Montigny, D-New Bedford. It was refined last year to clarify that no power would be taken away from the state Division of Marine Fisheries and no new fishing regulations would be imposed.

The plan would be subject to public hearings before it could be adopted. It would be open for review every five years.

Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, has called passage of the bill one of her priorities this session.

"Our ocean is the last great stretch that has not yet been developed," Sen. Murray said in a statement. "We have well-established laws for planning for how we use our land, but nothing for our ocean. It is essential that we put forth a framework and process that will protect and preserve one of Massachusetts' greatest resources."

The Massachusetts Audubon Society and the Conservation Law Foundation support the proposed law. Cape Wind ended its objection last session after wording in the bill made it clear that it did not affect its Nantucket Sound proposal.

However, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes the wind farm, was concerned that the legislation could weaken existing restrictions on offshore energy development. The alliance is still reviewing the bill, executive director Susan Nickerson said.

"The alliance does support ocean management legislation that increases protection of coastal waters, especially Nantucket Sound, and we are not so sure that this bill does that job in that respect," Ms. Nickerson said. "It could do the opposite, particularly with regard to what at this point looks like uncontrolled opportunity for near-shore development of energy projects."


Source:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...NEWS/709280379

The full text of the bill may be found at...
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/sena...02/st02346.htm

[BasicPatrick]

Flatts1,

As one of those who worked on the opposition to this bill last year, I can say that it is not as bad for rec fishers as it was and at this point we (rec community) has gone as far as we can on this one. Rec fishing is but a tiny part of this bill and the overall bill is a good one, not to mention it is a political steam roller at this point and any further opposition would be counterproductive in the long run.

[MakoMike]

What's to object to, it seems to exclude from its provisions any effect on fishing?

[flatts1]

Basic Patrick wrote:
"...I can say that it is not as bad for rec fishers as it was"

The final bill that was opposed last year appears to be almost a carbon copy as this year's. Although I agree that very early on before the final bill, things didn't look so good for fishermen and I'm glad that O'leary was very flexible in that regard.

MakoMike wrote:

"What's to object to, it seems to exclude from its provisions any effect on fishing?"

MakoMike, Last year when O'leary had any and all MPA language removed, some opponents didn't think that went far enough because it was "silent" on the issue. To them, that still left the door open. So they insisted that verbiage be inserted that absolutely no MPAs could be created.

But I agree with you, this bill seems relatively hands off when it comes to fishing (as it was last year too).

Personally, I am still a bit concerned that this bill gives so much power to a single person - the Secretary of Environmental Affairs - could be good or bad depending on who is in.

One last thing. For all of the demonizing that opponents did toward the environmental groups involved, isn't it a little wierd that the folks who seemed to make out the best in this bill were actually the commercial fishermen?

Quoting directly from S.2346
(emphasis mine)

(2) There shall be an ocean science advisory council to assist the secretary in developing a baseline assessment, subject to clause (1) of the subsection (e), and any other scientific information necessary for the development of an ocean management plan. This council shall consist of 9 members, to be appointed by the secretary: 3 scientists from academic institutions, at least 1 of which shall be from the School of Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth; 3 scientists from private nonprofit organizations, including 1 scientist designated by the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership; and 3 scientists from government agencies with demonstrated technical training and experience in the fields of marine ecology, geology, biology, ichthyology, mammalogy, oceanography or other related ocean science disciplines, at least 1 of which shall be from the Division of Marine Fisheries. The secretary shall serve as coordinator of the council. The council shall meet at such times as the secretary shall set, but no less than once every 3 months to assist the secretary in compiling any scientific information necessary for the development of an ocean management plan.

As you may or may not know, the commercial industry in MA relies heavily on a certain professor from UMASS Dartmouth to advocate for them at the microphone during meetings of the New England Fishery Managment Council. Sometimes that is good, as when he was instrumental in demonstrating that there were more scallops in the water than the government assesments claimed. On the other hand, he also went to bat to urge the Council to delay needed adjustments to get groundfish rebuilding goals back on track so that yet another 11th hour industry proposal could be analyzed. I don't know about you, but DELAY has been a hallmark of the NEFMC and we don't need any more.

You'll also note above, in addition, that the Massachusetts Fisherman's Partnership gets their own scientist on the advisory panel - in writing. MFP is an umbrella group for some 17 commercial fishing groups.

Now that, my friends, is what I call clout.

For all of the talk and fear of multi-million dollar foundation-funded enviro groups influencing the outcome of this bill, why isn't there a scientist listed in writing from The Ocean Conservancy or The Conservation Law Foundation, or The Audobon Society? Hell, why isn't there even one listed from the RFA or CCA?

Oh well. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Anyway, that's my .02.

Could have been a lot worse but the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Best,
Mike F.

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by flatts1

Could have been a lot worse but the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Mike (flatts1),
I hope you and others understand that "could have been a lot worse" is what we (Ma Recreational advocates) call a "win". We can nto afford to be waxing poetic on our keyboards writing about the ay things should be and speculating about who shot Kennedy. I politics you assess the situation and get the best you can for who you represent, utopian philosophy be damned. A lot of people joined to prevent what in my opinion "could have been a nightmare for some".