Member of Ocean Advisory Commission
By: Matthew Boger
State Representative Vinny deMacedo was first elected in November 1998, and is currently serving in his fifth term. He serves in a leadership position as the Ranking Minority Member on the House Ways and Means Committee. He is also a member of the Committee on Telecommunications and Energy, as well as the Ocean's Advisory Commission. Outside the legislature, Representative deMacedo owns and operates RWA Mobil in South Plymouth.
Q.) Representing the coastal community of Plymouth, you were a strong advocate in the House for the passage of the Massachusetts Oceans Act. Please discuss the importance of this bipartisan, first in the nation, plan.
A.) People see the ocean as a public trust and they are looking to state government to help determine how to protect and use this important resource. Our objective is to create a planning process that, first and foremost, protects the environment, but also protects the industries that have made their livelihood off the ocean for decades, namely the fishing industry. Taking these two issues into consideration, we must also look at ways to use the ocean's resources to produce much needed energy, and how can we tap into this resource in a fair and reasonable way.
It is going to be a challenging process to find a balance between all these different demands on the ocean. In some cases, there will be areas with competing interests, but it is up to us to determine a fair process to decide what the best uses of the ocean are, and that will, most likely, vary from location to location.
I do believe that what we put together is going to be a model for the rest of the nation, for coastal states on both sides of the country. People understand that there is a need for direction on how to best use the waters off our coasts – industry is demanding it, environmentalists, and citizens in general are all calling for this plan, and we are fortunate enough to be the first state in the nation to create specific legislation to do just that.
Q.) You have been named one of six legislators to serve on the seventeen member Ocean Advisory Commission. What are your greatest concerns and major topics you would like to see the ocean plan address?
A.) I actively sought a position on the seventeen member Ocean Advisory Commission, because I believe I can provide important input from the perspective of a coastal community, which prides itself on our connection to the sea and the economic ties we have. For me, being a legislator from the coastal community of Plymouth, we have a vested interest in what happens off our shores. My constituents have property on the ocean, and that is tied directly to their home's value. Our connection with the ocean is also strong because of out very productive fishing industry along with the historic nature of my community, because of the landing of the Pilgrims. These all play a part in the importance of the ocean to my district and the state as a whole. People from all over the country come to Plymouth as a tourist destination to enjoy the sites and natural beauty we have to offer, and I want to protect, and if possible, enhance that.
I really have three main focuses, at this early state of the plan, the fishing industry, energy, and the protection of the ocean's natural habitat. From the perspective of the fishing industry, they want to make sure that their industry is protected and that they are able to continue their livelihood and not be burdened by further regulations. This state as a whole has a tremendous connection to the fishing industry and it is one of the things that really has defined Massachusetts and plays into the uniqueness of our state. From the fishing boats seen in all our harbors, to the Cod hanging in the State House, we are inextricably connected to the ocean and the fishing industry. The Massachusetts Ocean Act is very sensitive to their concerns and has expressed specifically in the legislation that the Division of Marine Fisheries will review any plan dealing with fishing issues.
Second, there is a need on both the state and national level to embrace renewable energy, and the ocean is one of the main areas to look to develop tidal, wave, and wind power. This plan is the first step to really move forward with the permitting and citing process for these facilities.
Third, my interest is in protecting the ocean's natural habitat and the visible enjoyment of our ocean. The coastal communities up and down the Massachusetts coastline take pride in their ocean views and I would not want to see those altered. Additionally, we have the enormous responsibility of protecting this natural resource and all the living things within it, and I take that responsibility very seriously. The Commission will make decisions based on the different ecosystems throughout the ocean, and I embrace the importance of first and foremost asking how and use of the ocean will influence its natural environment. I am very concerned about the environmental impact. We certainly have no intention of going out into the ocean and taking this natural resource and sucking out all its energy. There are a multitude of issues that need to be weighed in determining the many uses of the ocean, and for me, the protection of the ocean will always be one of the first things I consider when reviewing different uses.
Q.) Over the years, there have been a number of renewable energy projects proposed in Massachusetts' coastal waters. Please discuss how the Commission will address these proposals.
A.) Obviously green jobs are something that is very important to Massachusetts's economy, not to mention the environmental benefits of using natural energy. I commend the Governor on being proactive in making sure that Massachusetts is at the forefront of renewable energy.
In many respects, the creation of the ocean management plan was a direct result of the need to establish clear regulations and guidelines when it comes to renewable energy. The Cape Wind project brought a lot of issues to light and really highlighted the state's lack of regulation and planning to address a project of that magnitude in the ocean. The ocean management plan will create a process that everyone can follow, opposed to randomly allowing permits randomly in our ocean. Without a doubt, renewable energy is in our future, the issue is determining where it is most appropriate.
The goal regarding renewable energy is to try and get a consensus by all the interested parties as to where the best places are in the ocean to site renewable energy facilities, both over the water for wind turbines and below the water for tidal turbines. The intention is to be proactive in determining location, and size as opposed to just reacting to proposed projects, which is what we have been doing for the past several years. There will always be opposition, and ultimately someone's toes are going to get stepped on, but we want to access each area in the ocean to determine areas that will have the least economic and environmental impact. Hopefully that is what we will be able to create with the ocean plan.
Q.) 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.) The vagueness of that particular word is intentional, because "appropriate scale" will mean different things to different areas. In some places, 100 feet wind turbines may be appropriate and not in others. Another consideration, besides height, will be the number of renewable facilities. In certain areas 4 wind turbines could be appropriate where other portions of the ocean may be able to facilitate 50 wind turbines. Once again, this is something that the Commission will study, using scientific data to come to a conclusion and create a definition of appropriate scale.
Q.) There have been efforts to enhance the transportation opportunities in our waterways, for both commercial and recreational use, in an effort to use this resource and get cars off our roads. What are your thoughts on how to move people up and down our coast?
A.) Transportation in our oceans, whether it is commuting from coastal community to coastal community, transporting goods from port to port, or the shipping lanes in our oceans are something that we will be taking a long look at. In fact, one of the six working groups is focusing on just that topic alone, and they are in the process of collecting data as we speak.
The question is, is it cost effective to use the waters to transport commuters? Such an initiative could help get cars off the road to help with both the congestion seen on our roadways and address the reduction on carbon emissions. I think there is an interest from the general public in increased water transportation to get way from the commotion of daily commuting, especially in areas down on the Cape where commutes into Boston can take well over an hour
I know that Congressman Delahunt has been working on a project to enhance the aquatic transportation opportunities, specifically connecting Quincy to Plymouth to the Cape and that is a very laudable goal. That is going to take a large capital investment, and unfortunately the current economic conditions, on both the state and federal level, are not optimal at this time for such an investment.
Q.) The legislation discusses the use of mitigation funds. How do you foresee those funds being used?
A.) I think that the goal behind the mitigation funds is that there may be projects that could have some ecological impacts, and the mitigation funds can be use to offset any of those impacts. Additionally, economic impacts could occur, perhaps to the fishing industry, and mitigation funds can be used to address those impacts as well. Overall I think the state controlling the mitigation funds is a good thing, so that an overall assessment of the needs of specific areas as well as the entire ocean can be conducted before distributing needed funds. In a way, these funds can be seen as trying to right any wrongs that may have occurred in the ocean because of a project.
Q.) At the public listening session in Plymouth that you attended as a Commission member, one of the comments addressed concerns regarding erosion and the preservation of beaches and property. How and will the ocean plan address these concerns?
A.) I have heard, throughout my district, of issues regarding erosion relating to private property, and I know that is a major concern for homeowners. I had a good conversation with the gentleman at the Plymouth public listening session, and he came specifically for that issue. I encouraged him to state his concerns before the Commission, for I feel that it is our duty as Commissioners to review all the issues, and this one should also be considered.
The ocean plan does state that it will focus on the ocean area starting .3 miles off shore extending out three miles into the ocean off our shore, and does not address shoreline issues. But, beach re-nourishment is an important topic to address because it directly relates to the ocean. I do know that there have been proposals for sand mining to address this issue, and our beaches are, without a doubt, an important part of our state's economy. I will be sure to bring is issue up when we meet as a Commission to review comments we have heard during the eighteen public listening session.
© 2008 Massachusetts Ocean Action Coalition
Conservation Law Foundation | Mass Audubon