COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 33 Number 11
July 2006
MA ocean management bill triggers debate
BOSTON, MA - Ocean management legislation is on the move again in Massachusetts. However, a new version of the bill, which includes additional language recognizing the importance of the fishing industry to the state, still has not appeased some of its critics.
This piece of legislation is a big step forward in Gov. Mitt Romney’s initiative to create a comprehensive ocean management strategy to deal with inshore development projects, such as LNG terminals, gas pipelines, and wind farms, while protecting natural resources and traditional commercial and recreational fishing opportunities.
The bill is based on recommendations of the governor’s Ocean Management Task Force, which released its final report in 2004.
And, because it is the first of its kind in the nation, the legislation is being watched by other states facing mounting pressure to site energy projects in nearshore waters.
Early in June, the Senate Ways and Means Committee adopted a substitute version of the bill. The new bill, now called S 2575, is available online at <www.mass.gov/legis>.
The bill must clear the Legislature by July 31 to stay alive. After that date, all bills under consideration will die when the current session of the Legislature draws to a close.
Proponents of the bill want to see it passed and sent to the governor for enactment before that date. As of mid-June, however, some opponents indicated they would just as soon start over again in the next legislative session.
Changes
Late last year, in response to input from the commercial fishing industry, sponsors of the original ocean management bill dropped explosive language mandating the creation of marine protected areas (MPAs) in state waters. They also added language confirming the authority of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) to manage marine fisheries and to be the primary steward of marine resources.
The latest version – S 2575 – does that and adds even more generally positive language regarding how fisheries would be viewed through the comprehensive ocean management plan.
For example, the new version of the bill now states, “The commonwealth recognizes that commercial and recreational fisheries are an integral and historic part of our culture and contribute substantial economic benefits to our citizens and communities.”
And, the bill now says that the plan “shall take into account the existing natural, social, cultural, historic, and economic characteristics of the planning areas; protect the public trust …; foster sustainable uses that capitalize on economic opportunity …; preserve and enhance public access; and support the needed infrastructure for the economy and quality of life for the citizens of the commonwealth.”
MFP support
The Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership (MFP), which is made up of 17 commercial fishing organizations in the state, has worked with lawmakers to craft the legislation and, as of mid-June, continued to give the bill its conditional endorsement.
“We supported the legislation and continue to support the legislation and will continue to work with the Legislature,” said MFP Executive Director David Bergeron.
However, he made it clear that if, at any time, the MFP becomes convinced that the bill will not be good for the state’s commercial fishermen, it will withdraw that support.
“The bill is not done and we continue to scrutinize it,” he said. “We want to do the right thing by our fishermen. Our support is contingent on the bill achieving our goals.”
Concerns persist
That position contrasted with concerns raised during the June 9 meeting of the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Commission, where the argument was made that the new version of the bill failed to address issues brought up in a Feb. 9 letter from the commission to key state legislators.
In the letter, the commission asked that the bill be modified to create a governor-appointed citizens’ board with the authority to “develop recommendations for an ocean plan in consultation with the secretary and to approve an ocean plan as well as regulations to implement any such plan.”
The way it’s written, S 2575 puts the ultimate authority for the “oversight, coordination, and planning” of the ocean management plan into the hands of the politically appointed secretary of environmental affairs.
Advisory board
However, the bill requires the establishment of an “ocean management advisory board” to assist the secretary in the development of the ocean plan.
The advisory board would consist of 19 members: two state senators appointed by the president of the Senate; two state reps appointed by the speaker of the House; the commissioners of the Departments of Environmental Protection (DEP), Conservation and Recreation, and Telecommunications and Energy; and the directors of the Office of Coastal Zone Management and DMF.
In addition, the governor would appoint to the advisory board: one representative of a commercial fishing organization; one representative of a recreational fishing organization; two representatives of environmental organizations; one representative of a nonfishing, ocean-dependent industry; three mayors or members of city councils or boards of selectmen of coastal municipalities; and two directors of regional planning agencies.
All of these appointments would be made with “due regard to coastal geographic distribution.”
Science council
S 2575 also requires the establishment of an “ocean science advisory council” to help the secretary develop a baseline assessment of the commonwealth’s “ocean resources and resource use.”
This assessment would be based on the “best available engineering applications and scientific understanding of marine and ocean resources.”
The assessment would include “identification of special, sensitive, or unique estuarine and marine life and habitats” and consider “public and agency input and other relevant natural, infrastructure, social, cultural, historic, and economic planning information.”
The bill states that the assessment would serve as “the basis for evaluating alternatives and choosing courses of action.”
Mitigation funds
The commission’s Feb. 9 letter also took issue with the way the legislation would handle mitigation funds forked over by industrial developers who damage marine resources or ecosystems. The commission said the legislation should be changed to require that mitigation funds be directed to DMF to conduct the necessary restoration and management programs.
DMF has a solid track record of channeling mitigation settlement awards into restoration work. For example, when the Algonquin Gas Transmission Company violated terms of an agreement to minimize damage to lobster and other marine resources and habitat while installing the Hubline gas pipe in 2003, DEP successfully fined the company $5 million. DEP and the secretary of environmental affairs named DMF as the lead agency to use the funds for restoration work.
DMF designed and is in the process of carrying out a five-year plan that includes restoration projects for eelgrass and anadromous fish, and enhancement projects for shellfish and bottom sediment.
As written, the revised version of the bill would establish an “Ocean Resources and Waterways Trust Fund” into which any compensation or mitigation moneys from ocean development projects would go.
It doesn’t specify in that section that DMF will have the lead in putting the funds to use. Instead the bill states the secretary, in consultation with the DEP, would administer the fund.
However, it further states that “the priority use of funds credited to the trust … shall be for the restoration or enhancement of marine habitat and resources related to the impacts of any specific project” and that “amounts credited to the fund shall be used, without further appropriation, solely for the purposes of environmental enhancement, restoration, and coordination of ocean resources.”
DMF’s role
Concerns that the legislation will subordinate DMF’s role in fisheries management to that of the secretary of environmental affairs were also raised at the June 9 commission meeting.
The actual wording of the legislation states: “The DMF, pursuant to Chapter 130 and any other applicable general or special law, shall have the sole responsibility for developing and implementing any fisheries management plans or fisheries regulations that are determined to be necessary by the division based on the best available scientific information.”
Furthermore, a new section – (k)(1) – was added to S 2575 that states, “Any component of an ocean management plan which regulates commercial or recreational fishing shall be developed, promulgated, and enforced by the DMF pursuant to its authority under Chapter 130.”
But opponents said what they fear most is not what the bill says but what it doesn’t say.
“The MPA language has been taken out, but the bill’s silence means the secretary can incorporate it into an ocean management plan,” said commission member Chuck Casella. “I’m fearful this legislation will blow us out of the water and reduce the authority of the commission.”
Lorelei Stevens
|
|
Tell us what you think.
