Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries
Ocean Advisory Commission member
By: Matthew Boger
Paul Diodati was appointed the Director of Marine Fisheries in 2000. Prior to his appointment, we was the state's chief striped bass biologist. During his twenty year career with the Division, he served as Marine Fisheries' Sportfish Program Director for which he earned universal praise for the program's effectiveness, specifically for his efforts to renew efforts to educate the public about the state's fisheries and the need for conservation. He has worked closely with both recreational and commercial sectors during his career, successfully utilizing his diversified experience to sustain the respect of the industry, legislature and state, federal and interstate managing bodies.
Q.) Please discuss the importance of this first-in-the-nation ocean management plan and how it will help the state address planning in our ocean waters.
A.) This plan gives us an opportunity to think in detail about what we want to do in Massachusetts waters. There really has not been a structure in Massachusetts to organize the many competing uses of our ocean waters that engages all the different state agencies. The Ocean Act represents a stimulus for state agencies to work together and follow a well thought out process for ocean planning. Until now, project proposals for Massachusetts state waters have really been on a first come first serve basis, and that really is not an effective way to utilize this valuable area.
Even though the Division of Marine Fisheries is not a permitting agency, we are an important cooperating agency in the permit review process. We review anywhere from 600 to 700 permit applications on an annual basis. Those permits run the gambit from small back yard docks to very large off-shore LNG terminals. The time it takes to review individual permits ranges could vary from a week or two to a year or two, depending on the complexity of the project. The ocean plan will help streamline and coordinate this permitting process and address the many competing uses of our oceans by determining ahead of time what activity is or isn't acceptable in the different regions.
Having recently attended a national meeting with colleagues from other states representing the eastern coastal states from Maine to Florida, I know, for a fact, that the nation is watching us. I fielded a lot of questions on what we are doing in Massachusetts and there was interest about what we are developing. It really is amazing that we have gone this long without an ocean plan. It is something that we, at the Division of Marine Fisheries, have supported for a long time, and I am glad to be part of the process of developing future policy. I think it will be beneficial to everyone involved, environmentalist, fishermen, industry, renewable energy developers, and most importantly the Commonwealth's residents.
It is clear to me that even during these early stages of collecting scientific data, we are moving in the right direction. Not just on fisheries, but on habitat, reviewing the many different regulations, various transportation issues, and other ocean resource topics. This plan will give us an opportunity to think strategically about our ocean uses, and to utilize the information that we have been collecting for years to base our decisions on. This really is a great opportunity, not only for this state, but New England and the nation as a whole to create a management process that will protect our ocean and to help identify the best future uses of the ocean resource.
Q.) Massachusetts has a rich history of commercial fishing. As the Act states, "the Division of Marine Fisheries shall have sole responsibility for developing and implementing any fisheries management plans or fisheries regulations. Marine fisheries shall be managed in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations of the Division of Marine Fisheries and federal or interstate fishery management plans". Please discuss how the plan will relate to state and federal ocean management.
A.) The Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries already has authority over all the regulations and laws governing fishing in our oceans. That has been in place for several decades, roughly 75 years, so there is no real change there. The Division of Marine Fisheries has the knowledge and expertise to manage the state's fisheries, so that important responsibility is well placed. On the regional and federal level of fisheries management, the Commonwealth through the Division is actively involved in a variety of different groups to jointly manage our marine fisheries, such as the New England Fisheries Management Council which is guided on the federal level by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Magnuson-Stevens directs us to work through the councils around the country. The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative and Management Act provides guidance for regional planning efforts by states to manage nearshore resources through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, an intestate body of states from Maine to Florida. We also work hand-in-hand with two federal fishing agencies, The US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service who are also rep[resented on the Commission. Working with all these groups and understanding the ocean resources in neighboring states provides us basis to develop regional plans on both the interstate or federal level. Those plans are generally comprehensive looking at the stock status, fisheries conditions and interactions, social, economic, and habitat impacts. These are the issues we examine when looking at any use, or change of use, in ocean fisheries.
When we develop fisheries plans on the state, regional, or national level, they are designed to conduct sustainable fishing practices, and to determine that, we analyze as much available data as possible. In my view, the MA ocean plan is an additional opportunity to make our planning process compatible with other ongoing activities in our waters. I think the Massachusetts ocean management plan is going to improve the climate for our fisheries. In the long run, better management of coastal uses is going to benefit fisheries and the fish themselves.
Q.) The Act also states the, "Division of Marine Fisheries shall provide technical support to the commission". What sort of support have you been providing?
A.) I head the Fisheries Workgroup, which is one of six different working groups to compile the scientific information that we currently have and still need to acquire in order to make informed decisions regarding the ocean. The other working groups include; Ocean based Renewable Energy, Habitat and Conservation, Sediment Management, Transportation and Navigation, and Cultural, Social, Recreational, and Historical Resources. A good portion of the Fisheries Workgroup is comprised of Division of Marine Fisheries staff, although there are other members, including a representative from the Department of Agriculture Resources who focuses on aquaculture. We also have Division experts working on the Habitat Workgroup.
I also sit on the taskforce on ocean regulations, so we are working to provide a lot of the data that is going to be necessary to develop this plan. At the same time, I am a member of the seventeen-member Ocean Advisory Commission, and one of my staff members, Dr. Kathryn Ford, is Co-Chair of the Ocean Science Advisory Council. In addition to all that, the Oceans Act stipulates that both the Office of Coastal Zoning Management (CZM) and the Division of Marine Fisheries have an equal role in providing technical support to all these groups and the EEA Secretary. Among the things we are doing are data collection, data analysis, participating in meetings, presentation of information, and setting up fisheries related meetings throughout the state, in addition to our ongoing work with the Massachusetts Ocean Partnership (MOP). MOP has been a very valuable resource and I am proud to be among the founding members of the partnership.
We, at the Division of Marine Fisheries, are engaged at every level and using our scientific knowledge and data to help guide the plan. An ocean plan for the Commonwealth is something that the Division has supported from day one, regardless of whether there was legislation or not. We always felt developing a thoughtful strategy for ocean uses should be one of our highest priorities.
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 Act specifically states it will, "identify and protect special, sensitive or unique estuarine and marine life habitats".
A.) The Act points to fifteen different guidelines to address as we develop this ocean plan. "Identify and protect special, sensitive or unique estuarine and marine life habitats", is among the most important of them in my eyes, and one that strikes a chord with most readers. It is just common sense and intuitively I think it strikes home.
I will say that this is something that we are already doing. We already have areas of environmental concern. For example, we have already mapped and identified areas for protection of things such as shellfish habitats, submerged aquatic vegetation such as eelgrass, and cobble bottom which we think is important for valuable species such as cod and lobster. Closer to the shoreline, we have identified areas to protect anadromous fish like river herring. The effects on habitat and how the aquatic wildlife will react to any use of the ocean are all things that we look at while reviewing each one of the 600 to 700 permit applications we receive each year. We commonly recommend time-of-year protection of areas that are known spawning habitat for fish.
I look forward to an application in the MA ocean plan that would restrict activities, other than fishing, in areas to protect unique habitats, spawning areas, and other important marine resources. It is part of our responsibility as conservators of public resources to do all we can to protect and preserve the ocean's natural habitat, after all, these are areas that provide the very basis and support for our fisheries resources.
Q.) Over the years, there have been a number projects proposed in Massachusetts' coastal waters such as wind farms, tidal energy, off-shore pipelines, sand mining, and Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) terminals. How will the MA ocean plan address these proposals?
A.) Those kinds of projects, wind farms, LNG, and cable lines are proposed all the time. We receive about 600 to 700 permit applications a year including projects like those, so our staff already spends considerable time reviewing projects just like these every day. We have the experience to continue to do this, but I think it is important that all state agencies follow the same process, efficient coordination is what we are striving for with this plan.
As far as how the ocean plan is going to address these projects, I think it remains to be seen. This first six months have really focused on data collection. We have already had valuable workshops hosted by MOP to give us an understanding of how this ocean plan might be implemented and the scientific information needed to take action. As we look at each individual region in the ocean and examine its specific conditions, some locations are bound to appear more suitable than others for some types of development, and still other locations are bound to appear inappropriate for any type of construction. Like everyone working in this arena, I am eager to see the initial ocean policies develop and how interpretation of the fifteen guidelines laid out in the Act will be incorporated.
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.) Scale is certainly a relative term. It depends on what the Commonwealth's needs are in terms of energy generation, but it also depends on the natural habitat of the ocean environment. We need to consider both the ecological and economic or market conditions that create need for energy. At this point, I am open to what the term "appropriate scale" means, and not willing to set specific parameters around it. The correlation to size and scope will depend I think on a variety of decision points and concerns that include overall energy needs, costs vs. benefits of ocean-based projects, and other considerations that well beyond fisheries matters. The other thing to think about is evolving technologies. In the future, new technology may provide the answers on how to produce the same amount of energy on a smaller scale, or on a large-scale but with very low environmental impacts. The plan will be designed to be flexible enough to address those unknown issues well down the road.
At this point, however, I am open to how the term "appropriate scale" is defined, and I look forward hearing the views of my fellow Commissioners and reviewing different projects to determine what may be an appropriate fit for particular areas in the ocean.
Q.) How will aquaculture be addressed by the MA ocean plan?
A.) Currently, all the existing aquaculture that exists in the state is outside the planning area of the MA ocean plan, because it is all near shore - that is, within the 1/3 of a mile off shore. Most if not all aquaculture in Massachusetts right now is shellfish related, such as mussels, oysters, and soft shell clams. The Division of Marine Fisheries issues permits and regulates aquaculture activities. Grants for growing shellfish in state coastal waters are given by local communities, but the Division has signoff on those grants. To get approval, there are a number of conditions which govern where an aquaculture facility can be sited that have to be considered, such as presence/absence of existing shellfish habitat and shellfish resources.
The Commonwealth currently does not have finfish aquaculture facilities in our waters, although there have been attempts to raise salmon, striped bass, and Atlantic blue fin tuna in the past. Those efforts met difficult challenges and were not economically viable to continue or expand. Long warm weather periods, which seem to improve growth for most aquaculture species, do not exist in Massachusetts waters and I think that adds to the obstacles for this activity in our state waters.
Although, examples of finfish aquaculture being conducted exists in New England. For example, the University of New Hampshire is doing research with sea pens for Cod. In fact, this past summer I drove my boat right over submerged fish pens in NH waters. I wouldn't have even known they were there except for corner floats marking the pen. Maine has had the most success with finfish aquaculture in New England, with salmon, but even that industry, which soared for the past decade or so, is experiencing difficulties today. Some of the difficulty is related to fish escapement, disease, and water pollution.
The Division of Marine Fisheries is very supportive of aquaculture development. In fact, it's a disappointment that the United States, in general, lags behind other countries relative to aquaculture. There are a variety of reasons for this lag that includes the high cost of coastal properties as well as right-of-use issues of ocean areas. As the MA ocean plan is moving forward, aquaculture has been discussed, although not at the level of setting aside particular areas for ocean pens or farms. Based on observations of past experiences, finfish aquaculture is going to be a difficult enterprise to conduct successfully in Massachusetts waters, and it will take an innovative approach to succeed. The plan will have the flexibility to address the need for open-ocean aquaculture if and when projects are proposed.
Q.) The Act creates the Ocean Resources and Waterways Trust Fund. How do you foresee these funds being used?
A.) I think development of this fund is an excellent first step in coordinating how environmental mitigation funds will be used. The state has done a poor job in the past with use of mitigation funds, but there have been no set guidelines and directions on how mitigation should be developed or applied.
Most of the mitigation over the years has been piecemeal, discussed and developed on a project by project basis. You never knew which projects would have it, and it was done on a project by project basis. There was no doctrine to determine when, or on what project type or scale, mitigation funds are mandated or to determine how funds should be used. Although the language in the act is still somewhat vague, there is opportunity to develop a strategy and action plan that outlines specifically mitigation funds would apply, how much mitigation is appropriate, and what the funds should be used for. We have focused on important efforts like habitat restoration and improving water quality with past mitigation funds, but with an mitigation agenda in place, we could better prepare our organizations by planning staffing and budgets that agenda in mind.
Q.) How will the MA ocean plan effect the Division of Marine Fisheries.
A.) The Massachusetts ocean plan is definitely going to give the Division of Marine Fisheries more work, and perhaps a new role. As I see it now, we could easily hire three additional staff members who would focus strictly on meeting the needs of ocean planning. Currently, we have people on staff contributing to data base management, spatial mapping, evaluating benthic habitat, and general fisheries information. In total, we have eight or nine people working on this, on top of their normal duties. Given that the plan requires a periodic five year review, there needs to be ongoing monitoring and evaluation of how the plan is proceeding and I can see this Division taking part in that review and assessment.
© 2008 Massachusetts Ocean Action Coalition
Conservation Law Foundation | Mass Audubon