Sponsor of the MA Ocean Act legislation
Member of Ocean Advisory Commission
By: Matthew Boger
State Senator Robert O'Leary has represented the Cape and Islands District in the Massachusetts Senate since 2001. The lead author and sponsor of the Massachusetts Ocean Act, he now sits on the 17-member Ocean Advisory Commission, charged with helping formulate the state's ocean management plan.
In addition to being a state legislator, Senator O'Leary is a history professor and faculty member at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, and a guest professor at Cape Cod Community College. He has also served as a Barnstable County Commissioner, and was a member of the Cape Cod Commission and the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Council. Currently he serves as Senate Chairman of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, Vice-Chair of the Joint Committee on Housing, and is a member of the Joint Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Natural Resources; the Joint Committee on Revenue; and the Joint Committee on Elder Affairs. He received his B.S. from Georgetown University, his MPA from Harvard University, and his PhD from Tufts University.
Q.) Congratulations on the passage of the MA Ocean Act; legislation which you spearheaded. Please discuss your motivation behind this legislation.
A.) I represent the Cape and Islands, and the way this issue really came to my attention was in 2001, when we were faced with a massive offshore wind farm project proposed by Cape Wind. Leaving the merits of the project aside, in the course of studying this proposal, it became clear to me that there was a real lack of comprehensive planning or process review for a project like this in the ocean. There really needed to be some kind of planning process and way to deal with a project of this scope. Realizing that there were no federal procedures, I then looked at the state level. It is one thing to be critical of a federal process, but as a state we did not have anything either. Along those lines, one of the things, for me, that really summed up the need for a fully comprehensive ocean plan, was the total lack of continuity on the state level of approving and permitting facilities in the water. When we were reviewing the Cape Wind project, there was a hearing with the Energy Facility Siting Board. This state agency was created to site power plants because it is difficult to get communities to agree to have a power plant built in their backyard. During the hearing, the Energy Facility Siting Board said that they had no regulatory authority over Cape Wind, because it was in federal waters. Their jurisdiction extended only three miles out into the water and only involved the cable, as it came up out from the water onto the beach. So, they were going to issue a permit based on the impacts on that cable line alone, and not the wind farm project as a whole. It is this idea of permitting just sections or pieces of a project and not the entire project itself that really got to me. As a result, I filed legislation in 2002 to create a commission to review the need to develop an ocean plan.
On the eve of our hearing for an ocean commission, back in 2002, I got a call from the then Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Ellen Roy Herzfelder. She indicated that Governor Mitt Romney had expressed interest in creating an ocean commission through an Executive Order. For the sake of expediency I agreed, and sat on that Commission, chaired by Sue Tierney, the former Secretary of EOEA under Governor Bill Weld. We looked at what was going on in Massachusetts' waters and in other states regarding ocean management.
That Commission met for a year, listening to experts in the field and what we found was not that there was an absence of regulations, but a lack of comprehensive and consistent decision making. Frankly, what was on the books was really reactive, as opposed to setting a clear policy on how to manage our waters. Recognizing that the demands on the ocean were growing, we developed a report titled Waves of Change, that indicated that the state needed to develop comprehensive legislation to address our planning in the ocean. After the Commission met, we waited for the Governor to file a bill. When that didn't happen, we sat down with a variety of different groups and submitted a bill ourselves. The bill did not pass that first session, but over time, with hard work in both the House and Senate, we were able to pass the bill last May, and the Governor signed it into law.
I don't want to understate the complexity of this process, when you get into the details and all the scientific data needed to make intelligent decisions, it will be a Herculean task. However, from a policy perspective, the overall theme of the bill is pretty simple and straightforward - to create a plan on how we, as a state, want to use and protect our ocean's resources.
Q.) With the passage of your legislation, Massachusetts has become the first state in the nation to legislate an ocean plan. Please discuss the importance of this legislation and the influence it can have on policies developed by other states?
A.) This really is an exciting opportunity for Massachusetts, and all coastal communities, to start the discussion on how we, as a state and a nation, utilize and preserve our ocean waters. I think the plan we develop could be used as a strong tool for other coastal states to think about their own ocean uses. The fact that Massachusetts was able to pass this law can be used as a template for other states to step up and do it themselves. We have already received calls from individuals in Rhode Island and Oregon to discuss our legislation, and that is definitely a good sign. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but starting the ball rolling is an important first step, especially since it has never been done before.
I have had the opportunity to meet with Leon Panetta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton and the current Co-Chair for the Joint Ocean Commission. He came to Massachusetts twice advocating for the bill, and stressed that he believes that the federal government and other states should follow suit and develop their own ocean management plan. It is exciting that we are the first, but with that comes the responsibility of creating a well thought out plan that takes into account the fact that this plan will be a continuous and evolving process.
When discussing all that needs to be considered in an ocean plan, I think, in the past, there had been a tendency for people to throw their hands up into the air and say, "we can't get it done, especially in such a short period of timeÖ.there are simply too many competing interests". I think what we have done here in Massachusetts demonstrates that, in fact, it can be done. That said let me be clear, once we get down into the details of this plan, tough decisions will have to be made. There are many interests involved and, in some cases, different groups will be looking at the same areas to either use or protect. The important thing is that we all sit down together and work out a plan, because without it, either nothing will happen, we will lose valuable opportunities or both.
Q.) You have been appointed to serve as one of the six legislative appointments to the seventeen-member Ocean Advisory Commission. Please discuss the role of the Commission as the plan is formulated.
A.) Without a doubt, we have a monumental task ahead of us. The Commission that EOEEA Secretary Ian Bowles and Deerin Babb-Brott have put together is a superb group of people to help develop the plan. All of the Commission members have had a long history with these issues. In fact, I served with many of them during the first Commission formed by Governor Romney, including our Chair, Sue Tierney. I see our first efforts on the Commission as broad, becoming more specific as time goes on.
As the legislation stipulates, this plan will be based on scientific data and, as you can imagine, there is a lot of scientific information about the ocean out there. All that information is going to take time to collect and review, and I foresee spending a good portion of the rest of this year doing just that. We are going to create and submit a plan by the deadline of December 31, 2009, but my sense is that it will be more of an iteration of a plan, one that will evolve as we collect more information.
One huge advantage that we have is the resources of the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership (MOP). They will be providing resources to help collect the needed scientific information and help us determine what the major themes are going to be. From what I am told, what happened in California is that they just did not have the funds to do everything they needed to do as far as developing an ocean plan. We are in the very fortunate position to have MOP help us collect and understand the critical information that we need to create a useful ocean plan. Additionally, I know they will be encouraging community participation, which is so vital to this plan.
Finally, the legislation calls for us to review the overall plan, the baseline assessment, and the enforcement provisions at least once every five years, so this will be a continuing process, which is critical. As we have discussed, the plan will evolve as time goes on and data is collected.
Q.) As you are aware, there have been a number of projects proposed in Massachusetts' coastal waters, particularly in the area off of Cape Cod, such as wind farms and other renewable energy projects. The term "appropriate scale" has been used regarding the siting of renewable energy facilities. What is your definition of "appropriate scale" and how do you think the Commission will address this issue?
A.) I don't know what appropriate scale is, I'm not sure anyone does. That is why we have that language in there. It may be one of those things that people know it when they see it. It is definitely an important term, which will be an interesting discussion for the Commission. We did look at different sizes and megawatt categories when writing the legislation, and chose instead to use the term appropriate scale. The Commission will attempt to provide more clarity. We wanted to provide some flexibility and allow the planning process to accommodate this term. It really relates to the issue of balancing the uses of the ocean and what would be appropriate for the limited amount of space we have out there.
Overall, my interest is to create a process that is open to the public. If and when projects are proposed in our oceans, I foresee a process with full community participation and transparency. Honestly, we are coming off a wind farm proposal that I thought was not fully open, and regardless of your position for or against a project, the process needs to include everyone. In the case of Cape Wind, I think the private agenda got ahead of the public interest, and we needed to catch up. I'm not saying there is not public interest in renewables, quite the contrary, but it is a question of what are the tradeoffs and benefits.
The general feeling is that wind turbines will be constructed somewhere off of Massachusetts' coastline. My indications are that is a priority of the Patrick Administration, and I can see the value of harnessing natural energy. The question is: where and to what scale. As we formulate the plan, this question will definitely be discussed. My guess is that the definition of scale will be dependant upon the area you are looking at and what that particular ocean habitat can handle.
Q.) Please discuss the importance of identifying and protecting sensitive and unique estuaries and marine habitats as the ocean plan is developed.
A.) The environment and protecting our oceans is without a doubt a vital part of this plan and it will be considered at each step. Anything built in the ocean will inevitably have an impact of some sort. These impacts have to be balanced.
With this in mind, we specifically did not use the words "marine protected areas" in the legislation, because that brought with it a certain amount of political problems. Still, it will certainly be one of the items we discuss. I hope we move in the direction of identifying special marine areas to protect, but at this early stage it is hard to tell.
Q.) Please discuss the importance of the ocean's recreational economy to Cape Cod.
A.) Nantucket Sound and Cape Cod Bay are probably among the richest recreational fishing grounds in the country. I fish, and it is unbelievable what is out there. Now, there are not enough fish, and we need to be mindful of depleting fish populations, but that is just an incredible environment. From the striped bass, one of the greatest game fish in the country, to cod, haddock and flounder, they are all out there and we need to make sure that they flourish in our ocean.
Beyond that, the oceans provide so many enjoyable sailing and boating opportunities not to mention the wonderful aquatic sightings. Let me tell you, seeing a whale breach out of the water is quite a sight, and I want to make sure the plan addresses the need to protect the marine aquatic life.
© 2008 Massachusetts Ocean Action Coalition
Conservation Law Foundation | Mass Audubon