Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Massachusetts Ocean Management: Implementation Progress and Results
Bruce K. CarlisleOffice of Coastal Zone Management
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Outline• Before / after MA Ocean Management Plan: – Siting and management standards
– Protecting critical marine resources and uses
– Collaborative government
• Progress on advancing identified priorities
• EVI: the one that got away
“ We have also been particularly mindful of current uses and natural resource qualities of the state’s oceans, and of our state’s rich cultural, social, and economic heritage that has been tied so closely to the ocean and our varied interactions to it. We took as our point of departure the current state of resources and uses, growing tensions between existing and proposed uses and resource needs, and the current set of laws and regulations affecting them, in order to consider what legal authorities and action might be needed to assure that the Bay State's public trust ocean resources are adequately protected while also fostering sustainable uses of them. ”
‐Massachusetts Ocean Management Task Force, 2004
Commercial fishing activity
Ocean Act of 2008• Ocean Management Task Force 2003‐2004: set of findings and recommendations
• Act directs Secretary of EEA to develop integrated ocean management plan by December 31, 2009
• 15 directives, including: – Develop siting priorities, locations, and standards for allowed uses, facilities, activities
– Identify and protect special, sensitive, and unique estuarine and marine life and habitats
– Foster sustainable uses– Support infrastructure necessary for economy and quality of life
• All state approvals must be consistent with Plan
Ocean planning area
Jurisdictional boundaries
Ocean Plan
• Draft Plan issued June 2009
• Final Plan promulgated December 2009
• Volume I– Management– Administration
• Volume II– Baseline Assessment– Science Framework
Marine habitat and water‐dependent use protections
• Plan identifies and maps:‐ Important marine and estuarine life and habitats (aka Special, Sensitive, and Unique resource areas)
‐ Areas of high concentrations of existing water‐dependent uses
• Contains siting and performance standards to protect these areas / interests
Administration and priorities• Interagency management coordination / integration
– Planning and coordination for regulatory decision‐making and science and data priorities
• Protocols for Plan updates and amendments– Updates to adopt new geospatial data/information on
uses or resources; correct errata, technicalities– Amendments for changes to specified management area
boundaries, protected uses / resources, standards
• Science Framework– Blueprint for evolving knowledge and understanding– Describes important information needs and identifies top
5‐year priorities
Special, sensitive, & unique resources• Endangered whale core
habitat• Important fish resource
areas• Roseate Tern core habitat• Special concern tern core
habitat• Hard/complex seafloor• Eelgrass• Intertidal flats• Long‐tailed duck, Leach’s
storm petrel and colonial important habitat
Marine habitat protection• Specified activities are presumptively excluded from SSU areas; may be overcome by a clear demonstration that:– No less environmentally damaging practicable alternative exists, or
– All practicable steps taken to avoid damage and project will cause no significant alteration to SSU resource and values, and
– Public benefits associated with the proposed project clearly outweigh the public detriment to the SSU
• Siting review completed by agencies during MEPA review: coordinated and collaborative
Project case study• Comcast Fiber Optic Cable Project:– Purpose is to provide
redundant upland and submarine cable to Martha’s Vineyard to ensure critical telecommunication 100% of time
– Falmouth to Tisbury on Martha’s Vineyard
– SSU resources: hard/complex bottom, eelgrass
Project case study• Pre‐application coordination :– Proponent meetings with
agencies– Ocean plan standards: need
to avoid SSU areas– Need to conduct survey and
site characterization
• Reconnaissance and route surveys– Sonar, video, grabs– 600’ corridor, transects
Project case study
• Meeting standards:– Route modification– HDD– Time of year
• EIR submitted, in review
Science framework• Blueprint for evolving knowledge and understanding:• Summarizes major marine ecosystem components and drivers
• Describes important information needs• 5‐year top priorities:Developing data network for sharing information about Massachusetts ocean resources and uses
Refining protected fish resource areasDeveloping new data on recreational useMapping and classifying benthic and pelagic habitatsDeveloping performance evaluation framework
Data system and network• Plan development and implementation of priority information/research generate large quantities of data on ocean resources, uses, habitats
• Host the data and make readily available not only to managers but to developers, interested parties, research community, and the public
• In January, CZM released major upgrade of the Massachusetts Ocean Resource Information System (MORIS):• Increased speed; search function• More base‐maps, including Google• Access to certain federal and other
external data directly from the agency of origin
Recreational boating data• During plan development, it was acknowledged that available data on recreational boating spatial patterns and economics were limited
• 2010 Survey (May – October):• SeaPlan, Urban Harbors Institute, CZM, Massachusetts
Marine Trade Association, plus other partners• Random sample of registered boaters• Data on spatial patterns, activities and intensity of use,
and economics involved• 2,100 boaters provided detailed information• Economic contribution from MA saltwater recreational
boating was $806 million and supported over 4,700 jobs
Recreational boating
• Data as depicted in 2009 plan
Recreational boating
• Routes from 2010 survey
Recreational boating
• Concentrations of activity:Quartile distribution of routes from 2010 survey
Mapping and classifying habitats• Data acquisition and mapping– Data mining for seabed sediment data points
– Two research cruises on OSV Bold: sediment grabs and bottom photos
– Analysis of seafloor photo archive for fauna and sediments
Mapping and classifying habitats• Data acquisition and mapping– Continued partnership with USGS to gather sidescan/ bathymetry data and create interpretive products
– Modeling: temperature, salinity, currents, bed stress
Mapping and classifying habitats• Classification:
– Classifying the biotic and abiotic into meaningful units for better understanding and management
– Universal habitat framework (CMECS)
• Need for systematic methodology to evaluate and discriminate ecological importance of planning area
• Development of Ecological Valuation Index– Compile and analyze spatial dataSpecial, Sensitive, Unique species: spatial distribution of critical habitat
– Apply standard set of criteria and scoring:Major contribution to fitness of population Spatial rarity Global and regional importance
Ecological Valuation Index
Ecological Valuation Index: Quartile distributionall scores for speciesoccurring in grid cell
Ecological Valuation Index: Quartile distributionall scores for speciesoccurring in grid cell
by group
Ecological Valuation Index: Decile distribution
all scores for speciesoccurring in grid cell
by group
Ecological Valuation Index
• Benefits of EVI– Differentiates areas in terms of their ecological value, using data on marine organisms
– Help identify areas especially suitable for protection– Important step toward managing based on ecosystem perspective
• Limitations of EVI– Data availability and spatial resolution– Difficulties in applications for abiotic endpoints as well as space / time
– Coarse tool: evolving understanding of ocean ecosystem interactions
Ecological Valuation Index
