Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Coastal Zone Management,
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
By: Matthew Boger
Deerin Babb-Brott, Assistant Secretary for Ocean and Coastal Zone Management, has been appointed by Massachusetts Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) Ian Bowles to lead the development of the Massachusetts ocean management plan as mandated by the passage of the MA Oceans Act, Chapter 114 of the Acts of 2008, signed into law by Governor Deval Patrick on May 28, 2008.
Deerin has eighteen years of experience in the environmental field, with a focus on coastal management issues and environmental impact review. Previously, he served as Assistant Secretary for Environmental Impact Review and Director of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office, managing the environmental review of major development projects in the Commonwealth. Before joining MEPA, he worked in the MA Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM), serving most recently as the Assistant Director for Planning and Coastal Development. While at CZM, Deerin served in the Coastal States Organization and on the Department of Interior's Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee, contributing to national policy discussions on the Coastal Zone Management Act, energy facility siting, and alternative uses of Outer Continental Shelf resources. Before joining CZM, he worked as the coastal planner for the Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. Deerin has a BA in Government and Environmental Studies from Bowdoin College, lives in Ipswich, and surfs in Gloucester.
Q.) With the passage of the MA Oceans Act, 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 and countries.
A.) The MA Ocean Act is a tremendous step forward in addressing use and protection comprehensively, and in creating guidelines for how the waters off of Massachusetts' coast will be managed. The Act is a model because of the principle it establishes and the product it requires. Issues the plan will address, such as the managing the interactions of habitat protection, renewable energy, and fishing, just to name a few, will be common to any coastal community, and, in that regard, could be used as background for other states as they contemplate their own coastal needs. That said, each state will inevitably face a unique set of factors – including different resources, marine dynamics and forms of governance - which will shape individual ocean management plans.
So the details will be different, but the issues are common. No matter what state or country you live in, we all share the same interest in the wise use of our resources and the protection of the ocean's critical functions. For that reason we will be working closely with our sister New England states to incorporate regional coordination. In Massachusetts, our objective is to make sure that the management plan we develop is responsive to the Act, based on scientific knowledge, and is informed by what our citizens think and expect we should be doing.
The value of the Act is both aspirational, in the sense that Massachusetts has taken the steps to create a wide-ranging policy to manage the many uses and demands on our waters, and concrete, in mandating that the plan be submitted by a specific date. Instead of just engaging in an academic exercise, the new law requires us to come together and create the best plan possible in the limited time we have been given.
Last, the Act requires that the plan be formally incorporated in the state Coastal Zone Management Plan. Through a process called federal consistency review, the state has the ability to ensure that federal actions like Corps of Engineers or Minerals Management Service permits or leases are consistent with state coastal policy, as reflected in state law and regulation. With the plan in place, we will be able to ensure that federal actions – in and outside state waters – are consistent to the maximum extent feasible with state ocean policy.
Q.) The Act establishes a seventeen-member Ocean Advisory Commission. Please discuss the make up of the Commission and what they will be tasked with doing.
A.) The constitution of the Commission is defined by the Act, and consists of three Senators, three Representatives, representatives from each of three state agencies including the Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM), the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), a representative of each of the coastal regional planning agencies, and three discretionary selections, appointed by the Governor, focused on specific areas: environment, renewable energy, and commercial fishing. The Commission is designed to be broadly representative and I think we have achieved that.
The Act stipulates that the Secretary write the plan in consultation with the Commission, and, in response, we have asked the Commission to do two specific things. The Commission will review all the information collected during our public listening sessions to distill and refine that information into planning principles. The Act lays out fourteen fairly general statements of purpose, and we have asked the Commission to think about defining those statements in more specific terms in a way that we can use them to guide our planning. We will also be asking the Commission to review and comment on milestone planning products. Currently, we are in the process of assessing national and international planning models that may be applicable to Massachusetts. We will then narrow down that information into three or four potential models that have particular relevance to our circumstances, and we will ask the Commission to review and comment on those as well.
Q.) What is the timeline that you will be working with to complete your research and plan by the deadline of December 31, 2009?
A.) We are envisioning developing two products. First, a MA ocean plan, which is directed by the legislation, will be created by December 31, 2009. That said, the plan really needs to be done in a draft form by July 1, 2009, because the legislation establishes a formal six month process for public hearings and legislative review. This plan will identify the ocean environment, based on data we collect, while potentially identifying various suitable areas for development, and areas not suitable for development.
The second product will be a fully developed formal process to continue collecting information we need to refine our understanding of what goes on in the ocean, how our actions influence it, and how we can efficiently and effectively use its resources. The bottom line is that we don't know what may be proposed in the future , we can't accurately foresee what the ocean will be like ten or fifty years from now and we need a far better understanding of how it works as a local, regional and global system. We think it's critically important to develop and institutionalize a mechanism to continuously gain and add knowledge to our assessments as we make decisions about our ocean resources through ongoing planning.
To accomplish these goals we have developed a four phase planning process.
Phase 1: From now until January 2009 (roughly 170 days): We will be collecting
information from the public and in our Working Groups.
Phase 2: From February to April (roughly 90 days). We will assess the interactions and potential conflicts between ocean uses and resources, address conflicts with stakeholders, and write the draft ocean plan.
Phase 3: May to June (roughly 60 days): We will take the draft ocean plan back to the public to get feedback.
Phase 4: July: This will start the formal six-month public hearing and legislative review as required by the MA Ocean Act.
There is going to be tension between our interest in creating an ocean plan that takes into account everything we want it to, and our marching orders as dictated by the deadline set by the legislation. We're looking at the short time period as a good thing, because it will force us to make tough decisions and actually put pen to paper to come up with a plan, as opposed to getting weighed down at every turn. In some cases, we will we have enough data to make specific kinds of designations; in others, we will have to remain more general because we won't have data to substantiate a potential management measure. I see this plan as not answering every question, but providing a well thought out framework on how we want to use and protect the ocean, while at the same time, providing the mechanism to continue to add information and evolve.
Q.) The Act requires that a nine-member Ocean Science Advisory Council (SAC) be formed to identify the scientific information necessary for the development of the ocean plan. Please discuss the make up of the Science Council and what specific scientific data they will be reviewing.
A.) The Science Council will help identify what questions we need to ask and what information we need in order to make the important decisions required to develop the ocean plan. To accomplish this, SAC will be asked to do a number of things. It will assist in developing a scientific baseline that grounds the planning process, and help collect all data and information necessary to support the planning process.
It is important that we get our arms around the information that we need now to develop the plan, and to establish the big framework questions that an informed, progressive, forward looking ocean management plan needs to address. Once those questions are identified, then we need to collect the information to help answer those questions. Some of that data may be available, and some may not, but this will be a continuing process, even after the ocean plan is submitted. We will build into the plan a mechanism to continuously add information to provide the state with the best and most recent information on which we will base our decisions.
Q.) Will the ocean plan identify specific areas for use and/or non-use, such as siting for renewable energy or the protection of unique estuaries and marine habitats?
A.) Yes, but how, where, and to what degree is a hard question to answer at this stage in the game. For example, the Act requires us to identify appropriate locations and performance standards for uses allowed under the Ocean Sanctuaries Act. We will get as specific as we can, but that will depend in part on the amount of information we have to substantiate those kinds of ocean management decisions
I think in some instances the ocean plan may tip towards the side of more general opposed to the very specific, and that is simply a function of the available data and the short period of time we're working under. We probably don't have the time to go out and generate the significant amount of new data and information we would need to make really informed decisions for something like a detailed zoning map. The important thing is to set the stage and create a framework which we will continue to build upon.
Q.) You have announced 18 public listening sessions throughout the state to collect input from citizens and communities before the MA ocean plan draft is developed. Please discuss your decision to get the public involved from the very start of the process and how will the information collected at these forums be used?
A.) Secretary Ian Bowles has stated from the very beginning that this planning process will be based on as open and transparent a public process as possible. He has emphasized that this plan should be guided by civic engagement at its highest level. So, we have built in, at each step we can, opportunities for the public to participate, and that starts from the very first stage. As opposed to drafting a document and then presenting it for public comments, we are soliciting public input to help us frame what the plan should look like, using those comments to help guide development of the draft plan, and then going back to the public to show them how we used their input and see what they think.
Q.) You have identified six critical areas to focus on in developing the ocean management plan. Please give some insight into the six Working Groups and how they will review and disseminate information. Will the impact of these activities on the ocean be discussed in each group, since all these activities will have a direct impact on the ocean's habitat?
A.) The six Working Groups are: 1.) Ocean-based renewable energy; 2.) Habitat and conservation; 3.) Sediment management; 4.) Transportation & navigation; 5.) Cultural, social, recreational and historic resources; and 6.) Commercial & recreational fishing. These Working Groups, which have already been meeting with state staff, have each developed a report identifying the data already available in the state system. Now that the initial vetting of information we already have is completed, we have expanded each group to include 8-12 members outside of state government, such as experts in the field, federal agencies, NGOs, and regional players, to help determine what other information is needed.
I am envisioning that the information collection of the Working Groups will take place in a two-part process. Right now, the Working Groups are advocacy silos, presenting their specific interests, identifying information needed, and posing the kinds of questions that need to be asked and answered. After each group has completed the first process, which should be towards the end of December, we will do the cross analysis and see how the six areas interrelate.
By the end of December, we will have a number of things in hand that we will integrate across the board, including information from the public forums, our planning process, the information from the Working Groups in terms of data, and the planning framework from analyzing national and international models.
At the beginning of January 2009, we will put all of those raw materials together and take a first cut at what they tell us. At that stage, we will start to make comparisons - identifying areas that are particularly suitable for different activities, such as renewable energy or natural resource preservation, and determining if they are mutually exclusive. We'll then start evaluating tradeoffs where necessary and working with stakeholders to balance and manage potential conflicts
Q.) Over the years, there have been a number of renewable energy projects proposed in Massachusetts' coastal waters. The term "appropriate scale" has been used regarding the siting of these renewable energy facilities. What is your definition of "appropriate scale" and how do you think the Commission will address this issue?
A.) There has been great interest in renewable energy, for obvious reasons. It is a priority for the Patrick Administration, and one of Secretary Bowles' main objectives is to maximize the state's investment in the development of renewable energy resources statewide - whether terrestrial or in the marine environment. The ocean planning process is an opportunity to begin to take concrete steps to get renewable energy – wind, tidal, or wave – in the water. The challenge is how to do that in a way that minimizes or avoids any kind of significant environmental impact. That is one of the many things we will be looking at.
One of the things this new law does is amend the Oceans Sanctuary Act, which had previously been interpreted to prohibit renewable energy generation. The MA Ocean Act now makes it clear that renewable energy is allowable in ocean sanctuaries, as long as it is consistent with the ocean management plan, and that it is of appropriate scale.
Appropriate scale is not defined. It may vary from region to region, reflecting environmental and social considerations. What may be an appropriate scale for Massachusetts Bay off Boston Harbor could be different from what would be appropriate for Buzzards Bay. Again, we are in the process of collecting the information to help us determine what appropriate scale may look like. We will push as hard as we can to make specific management decisions, and that means taking the language on the Act about facilitating renewable energy seriously and working hard to identify areas that may be appropriate for that kind of development.
Q.) Please discuss how commercial and recreational fishing will be reviewed as the plan is developed.
A.) The Act specifically states that recreational and commercial fishing are allowable uses in our ocean's waters, so the plan will not identify "no fishing areas" or prohibit fishing. We will use the plan to understand where the areas of critical importance to the fisheries are, how they are managed by the fishery management agencies, and what kind of development we should be allowing or prohibiting in those significant fishery areas. The Act also says that existing fishing management plans and the ocean plan should be integrated as much as possible. That is important, as it recognizes that the two are inextricably linked.
Q.) The MA Ocean Partnership (MOP) has been formed to assist the state in developing a scientific based ocean plan. Please discuss how that relationship will work and how you will utilize MOP's resources to develop this first in the nation plan.
A.) As an organization comprised of members representing all of the different uses and interests in the ocean, MOP is perfectly suited to be extremely helpful, and a natural affiliate in working on the ocean planning process. We have a specific mandate from the legislation, and the state is obligated to develop a plan. That is our responsibility and MOP has offered to help us achieve that goal in the limited time given to us.
Like the state, MOP's members are interested in the wise use of ocean resources. Their constituency is a sub-set of ours, and we have the same interest in creating the best plan possible, based on scientific data. MOP is going to assist us in a variety of ways, including contracting for professional planning expertise based on scopes of work developed with our input. This really is a great example of the state working with a non-governmental agency on behalf of the good of the Commonwealth. It has been a very positive working relationship so far, and I look forward to continuing to work with them as the ocean plan is formulated.
© 2008 Massachusetts Ocean Action Coalition
Conservation Law Foundation | Mass Audubon