Assistant Director/Environmental Program Manager,
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission &
Ocean Advisory Commission member
By: Matthew Boger
Alan Macintosh is the Assistant Director and Environmental Program Manager for the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, one of the Commonwealth's 13 Regional Planning Agencies. Prior to joining MVPC, he worked for a multi-disciplinary environmental science and engineering firm, where he specialized in water resources analyses and environmental impact assessments. Since joining MVPC in 1978, Alan has directed the agency's environmental planning department, where he has been the project manager/principal investigator for a broad range of successful local and regional environmental and land use planning projects. He was the principal author of the Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program's "Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays", and from 2000-2008 chaired the program's management committee. In 1998, Alan was awarded the EPA-New England Regional Merit Award, "In recognition of demonstrated commitment and significant contributions to the environment."
Q.) With the passage of the Oceans Act, Massachusetts becomes the first state in the nation to legislate a comprehensive ocean plan. Please discuss the importance of this legislation and the influence it can have on policies developed by other states.
A.) The Massachusetts Oceans Act offers us an exciting opportunity to prepare a management plan that is truly comprehensive, and reflective of our particular coastal setting, circumstances, and needs. It will be comprehensive in that it will be coast-wide in its scope; it will integrate a broad range of human and conservation uses; and it will establish a framework for balancing these uses in a way that is both economically and environmentally sustainable over time. And, it will be informed by our best available ocean science, so that future actions based on the plan will be protective of sensitive living resources and habitats.
Furthermore – and this is critically important to the plan's ultimate buy-in – the plan is being developed through an open, public process that invites broad stakeholder input. Ground-fishermen, aquaculturists, tourism councils, whale watching companies, energy interests, municipal officials, resource managers, and even the general public all will have the opportunity to express their particular ideas, interests, and concerns. This will help to ensure that the plan is not the product of a select few whose experience and vision may be limited. As a regional planner, I've observed through the years that those plans which incorporate the collective knowledge and wisdom of the community at large are the plans that are the most successful and that remain the most relevant over time.
A prime example of the success of this approach is the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, or CCMP, that was developed by the Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program in the mid-1990s. This plan involved the active participation of over 350 stakeholders – including agencies, academic institutions, municipal leaders, businesses, and citizens – and it remains today the principal regional blueprint for guiding constructive environmental change in our estuarine and near-shore waters and bordering uplands. As much as anything, what made the success of this plan possible was its buy-in by all 50 coastal communities that comprise the plan's jurisdiction. Each community's elected officials reviewed and formally approved the plan prior to its adoption by the Governor's Office and EPA. This was a truly remarkable achievement, perhaps even unprecedented in this state, and it set the stage for introducing and ultimately implementing a wide range of constructive activities – from invasive species inventorying and control, to open space residential design, to stormwater ‘hotspot' tracking and remediation, to green-scaping – all with the cooperation and support of the local officials. This support was not a mere happenstance. In fact, I would say in many cases it was inevitable, and the direct result of the communities' prior active involvement in the planning process. Since they felt a part of the plan, they have been better positioned and more disposed to help implement it.
The ambitious public process that we've embarked on for our Ocean Management Plan offers similar opportunities for broad stakeholder involvement. So I'm confident that it too will prove be a useful and successful guidance document as we extend our planning horizon from our estuarine waters to our offshore waters. I understand other coastal states are watching our efforts closely, and I think our dual commitment to both an open planning process and to decision making informed by our best marine science can't help but be a good model for many of them.
Q.) You have been appointed to serve on the 17-member Ocean Advisory Commission, representing the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission. Please discuss what you will be focusing on as the ocean plan is developed.
A.) As with our many land-side planning initiatives, we're eager and committed to working with our member communities and partner organizations to achieve a proper balance between our economic development and energy independence needs and our environmental conservation needs. A tall order certainly, but absolutely crucial to the future success of our Ocean Management Plan. Clearly, we need to support and site clean and efficient renewable energy sources offshore where appropriate. Our communities are besieged by spiraling energy costs, along with health care and aging infrastructure costs, and so we need to go beyond just talking about it and actually do it. Not a decade or two from now, but now.
It seems to me we can be both bold and environmentally conscious at the same time. These need not be mutually excusive. Having said that, however, it's critically important that any new or expanded offshore facilities or activities not imperil our vital fishery resources and other sensitive marine wildlife and habitats. Also, that they not undo the hard-fought progress we've made over the years in restoring some of our impaired estuarine and near-shore waters. By way of example, commercial shell-fishing was only recently restored to the expansive Merrimack River clam flats after nearly a century of closure due to river pollution. The clams here still require depuration, and the flats are still subject to periodic rainfall closures, but the water quality improvements have been significant and the local diggers are again deriving income from the river. In our public listening session held in Salisbury, and in subsequent conversations with various North Shore constituents, it has been made abundantly clear to our planning agency staff that whatever activities the Ocean Management Plan may ultimately permit offshore, that they not jeopardize our shellfish beds, our beaches, and other near-shore resource areas or our overall quality of life – the "first, do no harm" mandate.
Another issue of significant interest and concern to our upper North Shore communities and to our planning commission is the beach erosion occurring on the barrier beaches of Salisbury Beach and Plum Island, and the impacts this is having on private property, public infrastructure, and recreational use and enjoyment of the beaches. While it is generally understood, and hopefully generally accepted, that the two barrier beaches are by nature dynamic and thus subject to erosion, the sentiment has been expressed by public officials and others that any future permitted offshore facilities or uses should not exacerbate this erosion problem, either by impeding the natural sand deposition process or by declaring as off-limit sources of sand mined for beach nourishment purposes.
As a public agency, we will be working to ensure that these and other issues of importance to the North Shore region's various stakeholder groups be part of the conversation that informs and frames the Ocean Plan; but at the same time, we will be applying our own professional expertise and judgment to ensure that the broader interests of the entire coastline and of the Commonwealth as a whole are fully and responsibly considered, not only in the Plan's development but also in the various implementation actions that ultimately ensue.
Q.) Please discuss the importance of addressing the ocean's natural resources and balancing all the uses of the ocean with marine wildlife and natural habitat protection. The legislation specifically states that it will, "identify and protect special, sensitive, or unique estuarine and marine habitats" known as SSUs.
A.) In crafting the Oceans Act, the Legislature clearly recognized that prospective and expanding offshore interests and uses could possibly compete with – and even imperil – the health of the living marine environment. So the Act requires that the Ocean Management Plan give all due consideration to identifying and protecting these sensitive habitats, and to preserving the complex ecosystem dynamics that give rise to and sustain our marine species abundance and diversity. But implementing this legislative directive will not be easy, and in fact it will pose an ongoing challenge for us. The ocean environment is by nature highly changeable – that's part of its enduring mystery and allure – and we will need to be able to understand and adapt to these changes as best we can if we are to make sound management decisions, such as where wind farms, or wave energy, or LNG facilities should properly go – or not go.
What if some of our prime fishing grounds, or marine mammal habitats, should also prove to be the very best locations for certain types of renewable energy facilities? Will the different uses be compatible, and if so, under what circumstances and conditions? We will need to address these questions using our best available science. Fortunately, we in Massachusetts are blessed with having some of the best marine science minds and institutions anywhere in the world, and we can call upon these experts to help us sort through these complexities and inform our decision-making. The Ocean Science Advisory Council created by the Oceans Act is an outstanding new resource available to us, and the Council's members and their affiliate agencies and organizations will be key players in this process.
Protecting our marine environment is a critical piece of the Ocean Plan development and implementation process. But as this process unfolds, we will need to remain mindful of the Legislature's directive to balance the protection of our ocean's natural environment with other uses, such as renewable energy. This means we will need to consider our societal needs broadly, and to not give in to closed-minded advocacy on either side, whether for resource protection or for development. Also, it will be imperative that we not allow ourselves to become paralyzed from making any difficult decisions or taking any actions merely because the science is said to be incomplete and "more study is needed." There may well be occasions when this is true, when the stakes are especially high and the uncertainty cries out for proceeding cautiously and with more and better data. But we must not let this argument become the prevailing one, so that it entirely cripples our ability to make any progress toward a more sustainable energy future. The status quo clearly isn't working, and it can't be allowed to continue simply because we may lack definitive answers to each and every question.
Q.) What will this plan mean for the northeastern communities in Massachusetts?
A.) Beyond some of the specific issues I cited previously, I think the Ocean Management Plan represents a tremendous opportunity to shape our coastal future through a deliberative and collaborative planning process that is regional in scope, as opposed to making ad hoc, localized decisions that are driven by individual special interests. It gives us the chance to do something very different than what we've done, all too often, on the land-side. For years now, many of our local land use decisions have been made without sufficient regard to their broader regional implications, and as a result we've witnessed the steady march of ugly sprawl development across the landscape, and the assault on some of our most prized open space resources, such as family farms. We can't afford to repeat this same mistake in our offshore waters – there's just too much at risk. Our ocean waters are held in the public trust, and we have the responsibility of conserving and using them in a manner that serves the greater public good.
The good thing is the Ocean Management Plan requires us to undertake ocean planning and to make ocean management decisions in a regional context, and in consideration of multiple stakeholder interests. So if we do this right – and I'm hopeful we will – we shouldn't end up with the offshore equivalent of a poorly planned land use that benefits one neighborhood or community to the serious detriment of others. Think of a miss-sited giant box store or retail mall that sends all its tax revenues to its host community while saddling the neighboring communities with traffic congestion and downtown business closures.
Another major plus is that upon its completion, the Ocean Management Plan will be incorporated in our state Coastal Zone Management Plan. This means that the Commonwealth will have the ability to ensure that any federal action taken inside or outside state coastal waters, such as U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permits, will be consistent with our state coastal policies. This should give our coastal communities, as well as other ocean stakeholders, some level of comfort that the federal government will not be working at cross-purposes with the state, and will not be permitting facilities or activities that would be inimical to Massachusetts' interests.
Q.) Over the years, there have been a number of projects proposed in Massachusetts' coastal waters such as wind farms and tidal energy, off-shore pipelines, sand mining, and Liquid Natural Gas terminals. How will the MA ocean plan address these proposals?
A.) With an open mind I hope, and with due regard to the interests and concerns of all the stakeholders, and utilizing the best available science to inform our decisions. Also, to the extent possible, with the goal of achieving some level of social and economic equity, so that a given project or series of projects do not disproportionately benefit, or disadvantage, any one community or coastal sub-region.
On the energy side in particular, there is growing interest in renewable energy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is our dependence on foreign oil. I believe the ocean management planning process gives us an exciting opportunity to invite and support high quality renewable energy projects – wind, tides, waves – which over time will begin to relieve the Commonwealth of our long-standing dependency on oil, and in a way that will create new employment opportunities. If we do this right, and I firmly believe we can, there's the potential for these projects not only to operate in harmony with our local environment but even to enhance it. And to do so in a manner that doesn't impinge or foreclose on other important ocean ventures or uses, such as fishing, shipping, or offshore aquaculture. The key will be appropriately siting and sizing the new facilities, using our best science and applying measurable performance standards.
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.) The term is really a relative one, and pretty difficult to define with any specificity. Certainly, "one size-fits-all" will likely not apply when it comes to siting off-shore facilities in marine settings as diverse as ours. It will really depend to a large degree on the context, the particular setting in question. At the risk of being risqué, I'm reminded of the famous quote by a Supreme Court Justice who, when asked for his definition of "obscenity", said he couldn't define it but "he knew it when he saw it". Well, we may be operating a bit in that same mode at the moment. By that I mean we can't necessarily define "appropriate scale" in a definitive, technical sense just now, but I do think many of us have at least some general sense of proportionality when it comes to development. And I believe it will be possible for us, working together, to recognize and decide when certain energy facilities or other development structures or uses are out of scale for a particular setting.
We've been able to do this with some success, albeit imperfect, on the land-side. For example, we routinely determine when a proposed building structure would be too large or too tall for the surrounding neighborhood or the community at large, and through zoning we impose floor area and height restrictions to regulate this. Now admittedly, "zoning" of the ocean is a more challenging proposition, and perhaps not even an appropriate one in the traditional sense of the word. But I'm confident that through the planning process we've embarked on, we'll in time be able to establish some clear siting criteria and guidelines, and that these will help us to achieve "appropriate scale" facilities development in our coastal waters. Indeed, the Oceans Act requires this of us, in that it calls for the development of performance standards which renewable energy facilities must satisfy. It seems to me it should be possible to address the question of "appropriate scale" development through these performance standards. Will there be differences of opinion? Absolutely. Parochialism and NIMBY-ism will doubtless be a factor at times. Despite our best intentions, this inevitably creeps into our judgments when our own personal interests are at stake. But, I think that good people working together can overcome this, and can make proper decisions regarding "appropriate scale" for the greater good.
Q.) Massachusetts has a rich history of commercial fishing. Please discuss the importance of developing an ocean plan and addressing sustainable fishing?
A.) Let me begin by saying that unlike some of my Advisory Commission colleagues, and certainly our Division of Marine Fisheries personnel, I'm far from being an expert on commercial fishing matters. So I'm delighted that the ocean planning process has made a special point to bring in fishing experts, not only from within government but more importantly from outside of government, including representatives from the commercial fishing community itself. After all, their day-to-day working knowledge of our critical fishing grounds, both historically and now, is irreplaceable. The hands-on information and understanding they bring to this process needs to be a fundamental part of the various spatial and temporal datasets we use when we work to accurately characterize and map our offshore resources. We can't expect to make sound decisions on the siting of energy facilities or other offshore uses if we don't incorporate the special knowledge and needs of our commercial fishermen.
And you know, one really doesn't need to be a fishing expert to appreciate the vital role that commercial fishing has played in the Commonwealth's storied maritime history. We honor the "Sacred Cod" for a reason. From our earliest settlement times to the present day, our fishing industry has been part of the fabric of our coastal life and economy. And you don't need to live in one of our great fishing ports like Gloucester or New Bedford or Boston to be mindful of this. I live in the small port city of Newburyport, and while Newburyport has lost much of its commercial fishing fleet over the years, what remains is very important to us. I can assure you, it means much more to me to sit with my wife by the boardwalk along Newburyport Harbor and watch a single ground-fishing or lobster boat chug by on its way to the river mouth than it does a hundred gleaming Grady-Whites or Robalos. Now don't take this wrong - we love recreational boating and we've had a seasonal slip on the Merrimack River for many years. But I think when most of us reflect on our maritime heritage, it's our commercial fleets that come to mind, and it's that industry that we're most at risk of losing if we're not properly vigilant. And if we fail to adequately consider the needs and concerns of our commercial fishermen and fail to protect our vital fishery habitats no one wins.
In crafting the Oceans Act, the Legislature clearly recognized and articulated the importance of our commercial fishing industry to the state's culture and economy, and now it's up to those of us crafting the management plan to be sure we don't lose sight of this.
© 2008 Massachusetts Ocean Action Coalition
Conservation Law Foundation | Mass Audubon