Member of the Ocean Advisory Commission member
Massachusetts Ocean Coalition member
By: Matthew Boger
Jack Clarke is the Director of Public Policy & Government Relations for Mass Audubon, the oldest and largest non-profit state conservation organization of its kind in the Northeast. Jack worked for the US National Park Service at Cape Cod for ten years and later worked with the Massachusetts Secretary of State's Office at what is now the Cape Cod Commission, where he established and managed Barnstable County's first Historic Preservation Program. Following that, he served for thirteen years with the Governor's Environmental Affairs Office, the last five of which he served as Assistant Director for Coastal Zone Management. In that capacity, he helped draft legislation to establish the Cape Cod Commission, oversaw the state's National Estuary Programs, supervised the Massachusetts Harbor Management Program, held a gubernatorial appointment to the Martha's Vineyard Commission, and was an advisor to the first Bush Administration on off-shore oil and gas drilling. Jack also negotiated the state and nation's first comprehensive Guidelines for Barrier Beach Management.
Among other pieces of legislation that Jack helped to draft and pass were the Massachusetts' Rivers Protection Act, Community Preservation Act, and the first-in-the-nation Oceans Act. He earned his Bachelor and Masters Degrees from Boston College and has lectured at Harvard, Princeton, Boston College, Brandeis, Suffolk, and Boston University. Governor Deval Patrick recently appointed him to represent the Commonwealth's environmental organizations on the Ocean Management Advisory Commission.
Q.) You were involved in helping write the Oceans Act. Please discuss the development of this first in the nation ocean management plan.
A.) I think it is important to review the legislative history of the Oceans Act to understand the intention of the legislature, the advocacy community, and the Governors' offices, both Governor Deval Patrick and Governor Mitt Romney. We really do have to give credit to both Governors for getting this legislation passed, and I want to single out Governor Romney's Secretary of Environmental Affairs Ellen Roy Herzfelder, for her support of the legislation. She realized the strong concept of the legislation and really championed it from an early stage.
The genesis of the legislation came from the Massachusetts Ocean Management Task Force back in 2003 and 2004. I served on the Task Force along with a variety of members of the current Ocean Advisory Commission including our Chair Susan Tierney, Paul Diodati, Senator O'Leary, and Senator Tarr along with a number of others who were involved in developing the Task Force report titled Waves of Change. One of the main recommendations of Waves of Change was the need for specific comprehensive legislation to address the many uses of our oceans waters, and that really started the ball rolling.
After the release of Waves of Change in 2004, two pieces of legislation were submitted, one by Senator O'Leary, which Mass Audubon worked closely with the Senator to develop, and a second filed by Governor Romney. The Governor's legislation was good, but it did not go far enough in addressing how to manage the Bay State's ocean the resources along with the multitude of existing and new uses. As far as legislation goes, this bill passed fairly quickly - within four years. I have been in this business long enough to know that it takes a good five years for legislation to go through.
The development of the legislation went through many versions, and I give a great deal of credit to the hard work and compromises that were made to come up with the final product. From the staff at the Office of Coastal Zone Management Ð the late Susan Snow Cotter, former Assistant Director and now Assistant Secretary for the Coast and Oceans Deerin Babb-Brott and former legal counsel and now Commissioner of Fish and Game Mary Griffin, to Senator O'Leary, Senator Tarr, Representative Smizik, and a number of other legislators, our work here at Mass Audubon and other advocacy groups including environmentalist, fishing experts, and renewable energy sector, all had input. We tried to get everyone's interests addressed because that is what is in the best interest of the ocean and what was needed to get the legislation passed.
Two items stick out in my mind that brought up a lot of concerns from a variety of groups: marine protected areas and the management of fisheries. The Waves of Change report called for marine protected areas, but there were a number of groups that were against including such a provision. Secretary Herzfelder appointed a Marine Protected Area Committee, which I sat on, to come up with a recommendation. The Committee, led by Jack Buckley Deputy Director at Fish and Wildlife, held several meetings and the need to address protected areas was clear. But, as far as the legislation, and moving it forward, that provision was the poison pill, and we knew it wouldn't pass with it included. The fishing industry, for example, was concerned that it would close fishing grounds. The compromise and result was that the legislation directs the Commission to "identify and protect special, sensitive or unique estuarine and marine life habitats", and that is something that the Commission should spend time on.
The second issue was how to address fishing in the legislation, and I spent a great deal of time with the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership, and other fishing organizations discussing the importance of the bill and the need for it. One of the issues they had was that they wanted a voice at the science table Ð which is entirely appropriate since they are on the water each and every day. To indicate the importance of the fishing industry and to recognize the important information they can contribute to ocean management, we stipulated in the legislation that one of the scientists on the nine-member Ocean Advisory Counsel be designated by the Massachusetts Fisherman's Partnership. Additionally, the legislation specifically states that the Division of Marine Fisheries, "shall have sole responsibility for developing and implementing any fisheries management plans or fisheries regulations". As the legislation was being developed, we were not looking to ignore the fisheries plans in ocean management, we wanted to honor them, and that is what this legislation accomplishes. Adding the fisheries plan was critical to getting the bill passed, for without it, the bill would have gone nowhere.
Senator O'Leary has really been a great champion of this bill and ocean stewardship in general. In fact, the Boston Globe twice endorsed him, siting his efforts as an ocean champion. The Senate was particularly supportive of the Oceans Act, passing the legislation twice before the House really began to look at it. In fact, Senate President Therese Murray, in her inaugural address as Senate President stated that among her major focuses would be fishing, and she gave a lot of support to the bill.
Q.) With the passage of the Oceans Act, Massachusetts becomes 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.) Our efforts in Massachusetts regarding developing an ocean management plan can be used as a great tool for other states as they developed their own much needed plan. From addressing the many, often competing, uses in the ocean waters, to protecting, preserving and enhancing the ocean's habitat, it is important that we as a citizenry, state, and nation pro-actively plan on how we want to use and protect this natural resource.
One of on the reasons why Massachusetts is a leader in ocean management is the fact that there is a statutory mandate that the Commonwealth must produce an ocean plan, and I think that is a good example for other states Ð legislatively mandate an ocean plan. Absent this requirement, administrations can ignore the need to plan comprehensively for their ocean waters. Such planning should not be an option or one of political opportunism. That is key, for I have spoken with many people from around the country and no one has anything like this. New York, has established a task force similar to the one we had five-years ago that produced Waves of Change, and in California and Rhode Island they are looking at specific management areas but not the entire. As far as mandating an ecosystem based plan to address all our state waters, we are leading the pack. The other key factor is that the plan has to be promulgated by December 31, 2009, and that time table is important to motivate and push us to put a plan on paper. It is also important to remember that we will be updating the plan statutorily at least every five years. Although I hope we do it more frequently than that.
The statute goes so far as to say that not only must the Commonwealth promulgate a plan, but once the plan is produced, it will be the operative framework by which all state decisions and actions affecting in state waters must be consistent . No state agency can do anything that is inconsistent with the plan. In most states, the law says that the environmental secretary can do nothing that is inconstant with a policy or plan, but Massachusetts has gone a step further, stating that NO branch or agency of state government can do anything that is inconsistent. That is a big step that takes ocean management beyond the realm of environment including development, recreation, transportation, and everything else. The statutory piece, the consistency piece, and the wide spread application to all state agencies are three major functions that the legislation mandates and can be used as a template for other states as they think about what their ocean management legislation should include.
Another useful provision included in the Oceans Act is addressing issues linking state and federal waters. The Act calls for the Coastal Zone Management Plan to be amended to comply with the Ocean Plan, which will then be submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) for approval. As a result, all federal actions that might affect state coastal waters have to be consistent with the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan.
It is also important to note that the Oceans Act sets up no new bureaucracy or permitting procedures. What the legislation does do is provide clear guidance on what you can and cannot do and that is something that could benefit any coastal state.
Q.) You have been appointed by the Governor to represent environmental organizations on the seventeen-member Ocean Advisory Commission. Please discuss what your focus will be on the Commission.
A.) As mandated by the Oceans Act, there is one environmental representative appointed to the seventeen-member Ocean Advisory Commission, and I have been appointed by Governor Patrick to serve a three year term. Representing the interests of the environmental community, Mass Audubon, and the Massachusetts Ocean Coalition I will be advocating for, among other things, the protection and preservation of the ocean's natural habitat and the need to address and define "appropriate scale" for renewable energy facilities in state waters. These are issues that I stressed and advocated for throughout the process of developing the Task Force report, statute and now ocean management plan.
The Massachusetts Ocean Coalition sent a letter to Secretary Ian Bowles with the signatures of 32 different organizations supporting three major themes that the Ocean Management Plan must address, and I think those points are important. First and foremost, the Ocean Management Plan must protect the ocean's underwater habitats essential to sensitive and unique marine life. Second, the plan must allow uses, such as offshore renewable energy, only where they can coexist with healthy marine ecosystems. Any use in a particular area of the ocean must be compatible with the habitats and species of that region. And third, any new use of the ocean, again such as offshore renewable energy facilities, must be done in ways that maintain the ocean's living resources.
The 32 names on the Massachusetts Ocean Coalition letter really show the strength of what is a growing Coalition. I have little doubt that when people think about an ocean plan, the need to protect and preserve the ocean's natural habitat is at the top of their thoughts. The Coalition's early polling reinforces that notion. This is a resource that provides so much for our state and helps define us as the Bay State. Any use in/on the ocean must be well thought out and address the living wildlife and habitat which call the ocean their home.
To accomplish these goals and address the many different interests in our ocean waters, the development of the Ocean Management Plan must include input from a wide range of ocean users. I think we are off to a good start in this area with the eighteen public listening sessions. The Coalition encouraged the state to video these sessions and provide opportunities for individuals to participate throughout the planning process. EEA, with the assistance of MOP, succeeded in doing this by posting those videos online and providing an Internet website for citizens to submit comments.
Another critical function of the Ocean Plan is to use the best available scientific data to determine any use of our ocean. Sound ecosystem-based decisions require the best available scientific understanding of ocean wildlife and underwater habitats, and we have been working with state staff and MOP contractors to determine what information we have, what we need, and how to develop a system where we can continuously add and update our scientific data. The Ocean Plan must incorporate new information and data on an ongoing basis. I see the plan as a living document which will be influenced by information we gather and assess, now and into the future.
Q.) The Oceans Act lays out a strict timetable to formulate an Ocean Management Plan. Please discuss this short deadline and how the Commission will work to develop an all encompassing ocean plan.
A.) The legislation does lay out a strict timeline to follow. In June 2009 a draft plan will be available for public comment, and then in July the state will hold public hearings to receive comments on the draft plan. I will say that, to date, Secretary Ian Bowles and Deerin Babb-Brott have really embraced the public participation portion of the planning process, such as holding the eighteen public listening sessions, holding open meetings of the Ocean Advisory Commission and Ocean Science Advisory Council, posting videos of meetings, and meeting with a variety of interest groups. I have every reason to believe that these efforts to engage the public will continue, and I applaud them for that.
For a number of reasons, I always felt that the easy part of this endeavor would be getting the bill passed. First, there is a massive amount of scientific information that needs to be collected and reviewed. This is an essential function on developing the plan, but will not be easy. Second, we are working under a very short time period to get a plan on paper, but I actually see this as a plus. It will force us to make key framework decisions and keep us moving forward towards the goal of developing an Ocean Plan by the end of next year. Third, there has to be consensus for this plan to work, and that will take compromise. There are a number of competing interests in the planning area, and part of our job will be to identify regions for appropriate uses and protections. I am betting that there will not always be agreement on these locations, so compromises will have to be made to ensure that the Ocean Plan takes everything into consideration: conservation, fisheries, renewable energy, transportation, recreationÉand so on.
Q.) The term "appropriate scale" has been used regarding the siting of renewable energy facilities such as wind farms. What is your definition of "appropriate scale" and how do you think the Commission will address this issue?
A.) That term "appropriate scale" in the legislation was intentionally vague and broad. There is a bit of guidance in the Oceans Act regarding that term, and that is, appropriate scale really must relate to the location you are discussing. It is not a one size fits all definition, but relates to the specific area in the ocean. To go a step further, appropriate scale must also address the aquatic habitat in that region, and how a structure would influence that habitat.
I have to say, when the legislation was being written, we wrestled with how to define appropriate scale for a long time. In the end we decided to leave it to the Ocean Management Plan to define. There were many that wanted the Act to definite appropriate scale, and we went through many questions when considering a definition: is appropriate scale 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, 60-90 in Buzzards Bay, 2 off of Hull, are we talking about industrial size or small size? We ended up with more questions than answers, but when you get down to it, it really is about specific location Ð real estate if you will.
A goal of the Commission will be is to recommend protocols and criteria to help define what would be appropriate in different areas. This will be useful for not only the state and the citizenry, but renewable energy companies that are looking to Massachusetts's coastal waters to site energy facilities such as wind, tidal, and wave. It has been said time and time again that, in the past, the state has played a reactionary role regarding these projects. With the Ocean Management Plan there will be guidelines and set rules for where and where not to focus attention on renewable energy use.
Q.) The legislation states that the Ocean Management Plan shall address climate change and sea-level rise. Please discuss how the Commission plans to tackle this issue.
A.) That is a challenge and one that everyone on the Commission and others really need to think deeply about. We will be relying on groups like Woods Hole and MOP to provide us with information and data that will help us determine first, how climate change is affecting our oceans, and second, how to we can address it. For example, sea level rise and the warming of the ocean's temperature are two things we are already facing.
The plan should give guidance to the state regarding climate change as it relates to ocean uses, but as I have said, this will be a living document and I believe that we will continue to collect information on climate change and adjust the plan appropriately. That being said, this is a global issue. We must do our part but this is an issue that must also be addressed on a national and world wide level as well, for we are all affected by climate change.
I'm hoping that with the new Obama Administration and Congress, they will be working on national legislation as well for both ocean management and climate change, and move towards a national plan for both these important issues and that the Bay State will play and important role.
© 2008 Massachusetts Ocean Action Coalition
Conservation Law Foundation | Mass Audubon