Mass., R.I. approaches to ocean management differ

If it were a race, Massachusetts would have won, delivering its ocean-management plan for the waters off its coast six months before Rhode Island is slated to complete its plan. But it was not a competition, and officials in both states say the two reports will look different, serve different needs and potentially lead to different conclusions.
Massachusetts unveiled its 379-page Ocean Management Plan on Jan. 4, after 18 months of work. The plan, compiled by the Mass. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, calls for the protection of the ocean while also advocating for the establishment of regional planning authorities. These authorities would decide which state waters – up to three miles off the coast – would be appropriate for projects such as offshore wind farms. It leaves future regulation in the hands of the local authorities.
That differs from the ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) being undertaken in Rhode Island jointly by the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) and University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. That plan, which could number in the thousands of pages when complete, aims to deliver policy, scientific data and regulations as a single package. And just one agency, the CRMC, would have authority over the regulations. Rhode Island’s plan will also be backed by more new science than the Massachusetts plan, said Jennifer McCann, a co-principal investigator who is helping lead the process at the University of Rhode Island.
“The SAMP is an opportunity to look at who’s using the resources, how they’re using the resources, not only the people but the fish and the whales and understanding the natural environment,” McCann said.
Rhode Island also differs from Massachusetts in that researchers will study federal waters as well as state waters. McCann said that leads to a more comprehensive understanding of the water and its uses. It also arms the state should developers propose uses off the coast like the wind farm that has been proposed by Deepwater Wind.
In Massachusetts, researchers followed the directive of the state law calling for the process and looked only at state waters. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Press Secretary Lisa Capone said the office also felt the need to stay within areas the commonwealth had regulatory jurisdiction over. (And as such the plan would have no effect on the controversial Cape Wind project because it would sit in federal waters.) Like Rhode Island, Massachusetts explored the wind-energy potential and suggested areas favorable for wind farms. One area is about three miles off Martha’s Vineyard in an area close to the border between Rhode Island and Massachusetts. McCann said researchers do not yet know what they will recommend for the waters on the Rhode Island side of the border near the area sketched out as a possible wind farm.
McCann and Capone said there was no formal coordination between the two agencies designed to avoid opposing recommendations for the neighboring waters. Both plans came as a result of state initiatives and neither was given the directive or authority to cross state bounds. But McCann and Capone said the two groups have held informal conversations on the sidelines of conferences and professional gatherings.
“There’s a joke that we’ve heard each other’s presentations so much we wanted to challenge each other to give each other’s presentations,” McCann said.
And ultimately, if the Rhode Island SAMP and Massachusetts’ plan fail to mesh, the two states can turn to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal agencies that are charged with keeping consistency among policies under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Plus, a host of federal agencies – from the U.S. Department of Interior to the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) – would likely need to sign off on major projects anyway, McCann said.
Massachusetts sought to nip local opposition in the bud by holding a series of public hearings while designing its ocean plan. McCann said that’s all well and good, but the CRMC wants to go a step farther.
For the past two years it has invited leaders in marine industries to participate in stakeholder meetings. CRMC officials have provided the stakeholder participants wide leverage in helping to write the 11 chapters that will form the SAMP. Rhode Island has also sought to avoid the plan becoming simply a how-to guide for where to place a wind farm, which some have labeled the Massachusetts plan.
“Ours is more comprehensive,” McCann said. “We’re doing this because of global climate change. Our SAMP is not to determine where to put wind turbines … renewable energy is one of the goals but the big thing is global climate change and responding to global climate change and understanding and preserving the natural ecosystem out there.” •