OPAC MRWG Outreach Meeting Newport Monday?

[Salty Walty]

I have no report but I will use Greg/Fishsniffers' from another post since he has been chosen by the Govs office to be on the MR Outreach Committee. The Meeting was not publicly announced, hastily put together and many including the local OPAC members and fishing reps were not invited or notified of this important meeting.

"In other news, the OPAC MRWG outreach group met here in Newport on Monday and was well attended by both Sporties and commercials. One point agreed upon was that we need a Fisherman's Advisory Committee and partial funding was identified for a coordinator. The recommendation will be discussed further on Thursday in addition to public outreach efforts and community forums."

I have contacted the local OPAC Members and most were not aware of or notified of the Meeting or that the MRWG Outreach Group officially existed, had members nor had the content of its presentation been approved by the MRWG or the full OPAC Committee. It was discussed in Salem but not voted on. Members of the local FINE committe were in attendance but there was no official notice forwarded to the FINE Group. My name is on the attendance list of over 15 OPAC meetings as a Sportfishing group rep and Newport resident and I was not notified. I guess showing skepticism and doubt of the process will preclude involvement. By not including vital members of the community, fishing reps and elected officials it does not help in pushing the Govs cause. If this is the Govs Offices' idea of Outreach and transparency it leaves alot to be desired. I will be getting in touch with the attendees and asking them what was said. Greg could also provide some more insightful information as he was asked by Jessica Hamilton to be one of the Govs Representatives on the subject and gave part of the presentation. There was a recommendation on the Outreach Process by the invitees that I was sent and has some good suggestions. I have it as a Word Doc and will forward it to whoever wishes to view it.

Some of the local OPAC Members have even questioned the legality of this group and its members existence for reasons stated above. If this is the Govs Office idea of listening to local residents, fishermen, port commissions and elected officials, I fail to see where this has done anything more than alienate and disassociate the very persons that could help the process. Until things change I can say nothing more than this process has been and will be forever flawed if things continue in this manner. The Gov stated in his press release earlier this month that all groups would be heard but here we are again.

Should we feel well represented though with having Greg/Fishsniffer as part of the Govs Outreach Committee? I look forward to frequent updates on this important Outreach process as a Newport resident and Ocean sportfishinfg representative. We can look forward to hearing his view on the process, how he feel about the short timelines and rush to get this done for the Govs Legacy. What he is doing to make sure that our views are addressed. How the process can slowed down to make sure that stakeholders and effects are taken into consideration. I would hope that he would make sure that the mistakes and short sightedness that plagued the CA MLPA does not happen here are a top priority. This process has been touted as "The Way to get things done" by the proponents of these areas regardless of local concerns. As a person who represents Ocean sportfishers it is vital that we know what and where he stands and that he represents our interests. It is vital that you give Greg your views, input and thoughts on the Govs Proposal.

John H will be at the MRWG and OPAC Gold Beach meetings. He and I will try and fill in the blanks from the sidelines.

[Pilar]

Who is Fishshiffer? Never heard of him. And who comprises the 'Well represented' from the sport fishing community?

[Salty Walty]

Fishsniffer is Greg Harlow and is the head of the Central Coast Chapter of the NWSteelheaders. I think he is their "Marine Issues/Representative. I met him at a showing of "Common Ground" in Waldport. He got the film played on a consecutive loop at the Aquarium. He was also on a privately funded Portland Audubon Marine Health Concensus Group representing I would assume Ocean Sportfishers from the Newport Area. This group met behind closed doors and did a presentation at the Pac City OPAC meeting. Their concensus did not add up to much or really state anything of substance.

STATEMENT OF PARTICIPANTS: WHAT WE AGREE ON THUS FAR

1. Our goal is a healthy ecosystem that provides services and values to humans.

2. Challenges to ocean health include:
a. Global warming;
b. Habitat destruction;
c. Over-exploitation;
d. Invasive species;
e. Pollution, including authorized uses of pesticides and herbicides;
f. Synergistic and cumulative effects, including those due to land-sea connections, such as coastal development, altered water regimes, diking, road building and agricultural and timber practices.

3. The reasons for uncertainty in ocean resource status include:
a. Environmental variability: seasonal and decadal variation, as well as directional change due to global warming, and impacts of these changes on marine life;
b. Uncertainty in abundance of stocks which are either not surveyed or lack sufficient assessment data to adequately determine stock status;
c. Inadequate funding for conducting stock assessments and ecological monitoring;
d. Inadequate evaluation of the efficacy of management measures

4. Marine Protected Areas including marine reserves may be useful tools to accomplish the following:
a. Preserve genetic, age, and spatial structure of populations;
b. Act as reference areas to measure impacts of fishing outside the protected area by inside vs. outside comparisons;
c. Provide refugia to maintain biodiversity;
d. Protect seafloor habitats from human-caused disturbance;
e. Provide relatively intact ecosystems, which are known to be more resistant and resilient to environmental variability

5. The tool (for example, marine reserves or marine protected areas) is not the goal.

6. We support precautionary management principles. Precautionary management involves the application of prudent foresight in ocean resource management, including fisheries management, characterized by:
a. Fisheries that are sustainable and management that considers needs of future generations;
b. Knowledge of undesirable outcomes is identified and measures are in place to avoid them;
c. Avoidance of actions that may not be reversible;
d. Management that gives priority to conserving productive capacity if impacts are uncertain;
e. Fishing capacity is restrained when impacts to resource productivity are highly uncertain;
f. Use of a framework plan that establishes reference levels for the fishery and appropriate actions when reference levels are achieved or exceeded;
g. In addition to the above FAO guidelines, we characterize precautionary management as adaptive and sensitive to needs of communities.
h. Alternatives to present management should be explored which provide more flexibility to achieve resource, habitat, and ecosystem conservation goals ;
i. In addition, precautionary and adaptive management includes evaluation of past and proposed actions.

7. Based on the available evidence, we perceive the state of Oregon and West Coast marine fisheries, ecosystem and fisheries management to be as follows:
a. Status of marine fisheries:
i. Healthy for some species: Dungeness crab and ocean shrimp are
good examples.
ii. Oregon terrestrial and adjacent ocean environments are host to 22 marine species of fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Ten of the listed species include threatened stocks of salmon and steelhead. Of these, 3 stocks of Chinook salmon and 2 stocks of Coho salmon are of particular concern and influence shaping of ocean fishing seasons and limits for salmon. Three bird species (brown pelican, marbled Murrelet, and snowy plover) receive special management attention in the nearshore due to their status. Of the 4 mammals in this group, the northern Stellar sea lion also receives special management attention in Oregon’s nearshore coastal waters.
iii. A mixed score exists for groundfishes. There are more than 90 exploited species of groundfish, of which 32 have been assessed. Overfished groundfish species presently constitute about 8% of exploited groundfish species (22% of assessed species. Specifically:
1. Of 7 over-fished rockfish species, canary rockfish appears not to be responding to management measures, but a new assessment is underway. Based on the most recent rebuilding analysis, yelloweye rockfish is also behind on its rebuilding schedule and optimum yield has been accordingly reduced. Both canary rockfish and
yelloweye rockfish are important nearshore and shelf species of the Oregon coast. Federal rebuilding management policies have signicant impact on fisheries in state waters as well. Boccacio, widow rockfish, and darkblotched rockfish have definitely turned around and are rebuilding.
2. The Dover sole, thornyhead, sablefish complex (including blackgill rockfish) appears to be
healthy, although sablefish is at a low enough level to be managed under the Council’s pre-cautionary 40:10 rule.
3. Lingcod has been rebuilt and several species of flatfish appear to have robust populations.
4. Hake, a major offshore fishery, may have to have harvest reductions due to the lack of recruitment.
5. Little is known about the status of many stocks, especially nearshore species.
iv. Remaining fisheries are of unknown status.

b. Status of marine ecosystem:
i. Uncertain due to:
1. Lack of monitoring:
a. Bycatch, while partially monitored, lacks a long-term plan for prevention other than RCAs;
b. The abundance and distribution of non-target fishes, invertebrates and plants species are not well monitored.
2. Lack of assessments:
a. Few stock assessments have been completed (8 of 42 nearshore species in Oregon assessed);
b. Few biodiversity surveys assessing spatial distribution of both target and non-target species have been conducted;
c. Few comprehensive maps exist for seafloor habitats.
3. Environmental variability and global warming;
4. Unknown long-term effects of pollutants;
5. Dead zones;
6. Invasive species;
7. Lack of protection for low-relief seafloor habitats.

c. Status of fisheries management:
i. Improving due to EFH amendment and changes in Magnuson-Stevens Act;
ii. Improving due to recent ecosystem-based initiatives by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, including a ban on krill fisheries and formation of an Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Subcommittee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee.
iii. Improving through the use of initiatives to ‘market’ sustainable fisheries using sound ecosystem-based management principles;
iv. In need of improvement due to:
1. Lack of international controls or the application of ecosystem-based scientific methods and precautionary management techniques; 2. Need for more flexibility to manage limited resources;
3. Need for greater implementation of ecosystem-based approaches, including spatial management.

8. In Oregon’s nearshore, the Oregon Ocean Resources Management Plan and the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan, including Goal 19, direct that management should "conserve marine resources and ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term ecological, economic, and social value and benefits to future generations."

9. Therefore, we support:
a. A healthy ecosystem;
b. Adaptive management with local flexibility, including community-based management;
c. The identification of important ecological areas within Oregon's coastal and marine ecosystem, the identification of threats to those areas, appropriate management measures to conserve those areas, and monitoring and evaluation of those management measures;
d. Use of tools which may include Marine Reserves and Marine Protected Areas:
i. To protect living marine resources and their seafloor habitats;
ii. To protect the genetic, age and spatial structure of species, especially long-lived species known to require older age classes to maintain reproductive capacity;
iii. To protect natural and cultural heritage sites and to maintain biodiversity;
iv. As reference areas to evaluate external management actions;
v. To provide relatively intact ecosystems, which are known to be more resistant and resilient to environmental variability and change.

e. A process for the investigation of marine reserves that includes the following:
i. Encourages the involvement of coastal forums or community councils. Community councils should be small in geographic scope (i.e., port by port) and diverse in representation, including the fishing industry, government agencies, environmental organizations, universities, independent scientists, other interest groups;
ii. Local knowledge about resource abundance and distribution, collected and consolidated using GIS technology. Data should be validated and valued for use in planning processes;
iii. Funding made available for councils and other legal authorities to assess and monitor actions and activities.
(f) An approach which includes and addresses the threats by coastal and upslope impacts to healthy marine ecosystems.

Signed by:

Cheryl Coon, Audubon Society of Portland
Jim Martin, Berkley Conservation Institute
Pete Stauffer, Surfrider Foundation
Frank Warrens
Peter Huhtala, Pacific Marine Conservation Council
Linda Buell, Garibaldi, Oregon
Ben Enticknap, Oceana
Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
Dr. Mark Hixon, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University
Jim Golden, Golden Marine Consulting
Bob Rees, NW Guides and Anglers Association
Mark Lottis, Five Star Charters, Gold Beach, Oregon
Jeff Feldner, fisherman, Newport, Oregon
Dr. Kirsten Grorud-Colvert
Bob Jacobson, fisherman, Newport, Oregon
Greg Harlow, Association of Northwest Steelheaders
Carolyn Waldron, Oregon Ocean
Laura Anderson, small business owner, Newport, Oregon
Leesa Cobb, Port Orford Ocean Resource Team


He has been out with 2 other members of this group Paul Engelmeyer and Pete Stauffer showing "Common Ground" to audiences. He was selected by Jessica Hamilton to be on the OPAC MRWG Outreach team. I have not heard his presentation or exactly what user group or interests he is claiming to represent. He has not spent much time on the SD Board giving updates announcing meetings or giving his views on the topics. If he is claiming to represent Ocean Sportfishers I would think that this forum would be a good way to get his and the Govs message out.

[Pilar]

Audobon society? Showing the propaganda movie created by the 'no take' California crowd that rammed MPAs through in California?

How does that represent sport fishers? It seems it completely contradicts sport fishers interests.

Am I the only one who sees this>?

[Metal Manipulator]

Much of what I just read stinks of closures.

4. Marine Protected Areas including marine reserves may be useful tools to accomplish the following:
a. Preserve genetic, age, and spatial structure of populations;
b. Act as reference areas to measure impacts of fishing outside the protected area by inside vs. outside comparisons;
c. Provide refugia to maintain biodiversity;
d. Protect seafloor habitats from human-caused disturbance;
e. Provide relatively intact ecosystems, which are known to be more resistant and resilient to environmental variability

This spells heavy fishing restrictions to me!!!

And these spell the end of fishing insome of our heritage fishing areas.

9. Therefore, we support:
a. A healthy ecosystem;
b. Adaptive management with local flexibility, including community-based management;
c. The identification of important ecological areas within Oregon's coastal and marine ecosystem, the identification of threats to those areas, appropriate management measures to conserve those areas, and monitoring and evaluation of those management measures;
d. Use of tools which may include Marine Reserves and Marine Protected Areas:
i. To protect living marine resources and their seafloor habitats;
ii. To protect the genetic, age and spatial structure of species, especially long-lived species known to require older age classes to maintain reproductive capacity;
iii. To protect natural and cultural heritage sites and to maintain biodiversity;
iv. As reference areas to evaluate external management actions;
v. To provide relatively intact ecosystems, which are known to be more resistant and resilient to environmental variability and change.

I believe the only way to stop this is to file lawsuits against these people and their actions before they even get close to implementing their wacked out ideas. But I'm afrraid that we do not have the resolve to organize and put a stop to this. I my self only have the ability to screem, I don't have the ability, time or money to get it done. I pray for a leader to get this done. One thing I can do is get behind a leader to give him the power with the formation of the masses to persuade those who in my opinion, wish to do us harm.

[Chromaflage]

Isn't this where the RFA might be able to apply some leverage? Just a question.

[Salty Walty]

Below is the response from the fishermen who were invited to the Outreach Meeting. I am still looking for the names of the attendees.



November 26, 2007




To: Outreach Committee, Marine Reserves Working Group

From: Ginny Goblirsch, Port of Newport Commissioner
Jeff Feldner, OSU Sea Grant Marine Extension Agent

Subject: Preliminary Report and Recommendations
Outreach/Education Process

Over the past two weeks, we met with two fishermen’s organizations to brief them on the current OPAC marine reserves process. We met with the Salmon Commission on November 19 and with the Fishermen Involved with Natural Energy (FINE) Committee on November 20.

Our purpose was to inform fishermen about the process now underway and to solicit feedback on what role, if any, they would be willing to play in the designation of marine reserves. We wanted to dip our toes in and test the waters so to speak.

Fishermen’s Response

It was interesting to observe that many of them were only vaguely aware of the current marine reserve process and were stunned by the timeline. Their attention has been focused on the wave buoy park issue and had not tuned in to the marine reserve issue.

In both meetings, there was initial shock (particularly with the timeline) and then pushback. “No way, we don’t want them, why is this being done when we are already strictly regulated; we’ve given up too much already, what’s the problem trying to be solved, why so fast, how big, how many”, etc. etc. were common comments. Very prominent were concerns that no attention had being given to changes in management goals and strategies (to get to sustainable fisheries) in recent years and to the many effective gear modifications which have been made by fishermen to support those goals and protect habitat. Since marine reserves are a management tool, how will they relate to current management strategies and why are they being implemented outside of our natural resource agencies?

After some discussion about the potential value of marine reserves, fishermen expressed the need to have fishing expertise at the table. Generally the tone softened somewhat and was replaced with the desire to be closely involved with the process. Most ultimately shared a strong opinion that for the best possible outcome both for their fishing businesses, their community and OPAC’s goals with marine reserves, the process needed to be refocused to the local level for both nominations and recommendations on final siting. Some felt there were some areas which could potentially be identified which would not negatively impact fisheries. This is not to say all fishermen will support the process under any conditions.

Coastal Port and Community Response

We have also been engaged in extensive discussions with many coastal people on an ongoing basis. Our desire was to objectively gather input as to the best methods to use in a marine reserves outreach and education program. A summary of the letters and comments submitted by coastal ports and communities reflects many of the same comments we are receiving and the concerns fishermen have expressed:

1. The current process and timeline is unrealistic.
2. The process should be anchored in coastal communities. Oregon coastal ports and elected port commissioners should be provided the opportunity to facilitate local input in developing community and coastal consensus in the state marine reserve process.
3. Fishermen need to be part of the process from the beginning. Their advice and knowledge should be utilized.
4. Given the fact that our territorial sea is already being managed for sustainable resources and for economic benefits to coastal communities and that no known emergency exists, why is this process underway? What is the need?
5. Funding needs to be secured to ensure that mapping, baseline data, ongoing research, monitoring, enforcement and socioeconomic impacts are conducted.
6. What are the socioeconomic impacts? How can the best information be incorporated into the nomination and selection process?
7. How does this process allow for consideration of other set asides now in place or being contemplated – existing marine protected areas and wave buoy parks which serve to further restrict fishing opportunities. Wave parks will impact habitat. Without working on these in a coordinated manner, wave parks could damage more habitat than is preserved by marine reserves.
8. This process is underway without south coast representation on OPAC. The site nomination process should be only conducted with the south coast represented. How could anyone feel that south coast public outreach would be successful absent their representation on OPAC?

This issue and other issues which so directly impact coastal communities and fishermen go beyond perceived economic threats. These issues are seen as potentially threatening to the history, culture and way of life on the coast.



State Policy, Governor’s Statement and Lessons Learned

These are attached to this memo (Attachment 1) and reinforce comments coming from fishermen and coastal communities.
Emerging Suggestions and Themes

We feel the following are important and must be addressed before this process continues much further.

1. Both the site nomination and site selection process should be community driven and serve to enhance OPAC’s science and socioeconomic information needs.
Community based FINE-like committees should be encouraged to form to bring forth proposals for potential, appropriate local sites. This would allow for extensive local knowledge to be introduced into the process and would also initially address potential socio-economic impacts. The option of no site identification should also be respected.

2. Define which agency(s) will be charged with managing marine reserves.

3. OPAC should form a fishermen’s advisory committee to advise the Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) during all phases of this process and especially during the public outreach and education process. Again, this helps to ensure a community-driven process while providing real world knowledge and expertise to help fill in some of the significant gaps in scientific knowledge (regarding state waters) which have been brought forth by the STAC.

4. Reserves should be used to learn about ocean ecosystems. This is where STAC’s role would be of most value. STAC should focus less on site selection and more on defining an evaluation process to measure change which might occur in the sites. What do the changes mean and what can we learn from them? It should be acknowledged that proper response to lessons learned from these sites should (and ultimately will under any circumstances) include appropriate fishery management adaptations. This concept of knowledge-based adaptation would be much more palatable to coastal communities than the current process trajectory, which is commonly seen as one of simple preemptive restriction: no take. As an illustration of this reality, simply naming these sites “Marine Research Areas” might garner more public support for their establishment than if they are called “Marine Reserves”, “Marine Protected Areas”, “Heritage Sites”, or any of the other current language options.

5. Funding commitments to gather baseline data and then manage / monitor / enforce sites should be secured before selections are made. Selection in some cases would depend on the ability to monitor and respond to ecological lessons gained at the potential site. This is very important because of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) example regarding the Essential Fish Habitat no-trawl zones. Oceana and other non-government organizations (NGO) sued the PFMC to establish no trawl closed areas and but didn’t push for funding to study these areas (and still haven’t) after they indicated they supported this research during the process. What is the funding plan for marine reserves and who will be responsible for securing it? If the Governor appointed a funding committee now, there would be some assurance of a recommendation for short (process)-term and long-term resources in a timely manner.

6. The selection process would be more acceptable to coastal communities and fishermen (and actually allow more useful options for site design and function) if “no take” requirements were relaxed. MPA’s should be considered acceptable in some cases or in some sectors of designated sites. Most processes world-wide address marine habitat protections and are done in the context of resource goals for which multiple use options are compatible, and total no take reserves are a smaller percentage of the designated critical habitat protection areas.

7. The network / connectivity function is not yet well understood and should be learned in an evolutionary process as sites are studied rather than by attempting to quantitatively predict it. Prescribing an ecologically interacting network based on what is generally perceived as weak scientific data can only be supported by some sort of statistically precautionary “windage” factor to account for what isn’t really known. This reality doesn’t require abandonment of the intent to establish a meaningful strategy to utilize these sites to enhance connectivity, dispersion, and the migratory functions of marine organisms. It merely acknowledges that, until we learn more about how these processes actually work, we cannot really do much more than guess about where and how many sites there should be. We strongly recommend dropping the “network” concept for the purposes siting criteria.

8. Reserve size is also not yet well understood for our waters. Define terms like “large enough” and “small enough” to help allay community fears of widespread closures as we begin to learn more about what’s appropriate in our waters. As stated above, since we cannot do more than guess at how many there should be, we also cannot do more than guess as to how large they should be. These need to be learned in an evolutionary process. The Governor missed an opportunity to help us understand the scope of this process by not stating how much (what percent) of the state waters should be no-take. Providing an upper cap would give that perspective.

9. Put out an example chart showing existing subtital MPA’s, USFWS sites, wave buoy park permitted areas and existing persistent kelp beds– these represent 12-15% of the Territorial Sea (10% of that in wave buoy park permits, 2% in kelp) and any pre-established community-based sites (Port Orford) for use by the public and community based marine reserve working groups. Consider community/port coordinated input on single agreed-upon nominations for the remaining habitat types not represented in the above (there are a total of 8 habitat types and many of them will be represented in the above, but if there are some types of reef or sandy bottom types not in this mix, the latter recommendations could come from coastal communities working through their ports.)

10. OPAC should consider accepting some form of performance-based sunset criteria for some of these sites. This could allow for adaptation of original site criteria in response to learned knowledge, or, in some cases, to reclassification or relocation of the site.


Designing an Effective Outreach and Education Program

Since we have not been closely involved with this process until now, we feel we can bring fresh eyes to help find a way forward. We are thankfully largely unaware of the inevitable political issues behind the scenes. If we inadvertently step on some toes, we apologize.

Because the Governor has already made the decision to establish marine reserves, how can we now proceed to plan an effective outreach and education program which will not be strongly opposed by fishermen and coastal communities? Some suggestions come to mind based our review and summary.

First, coastal community interests must have a voice in the Governor’s office. Environmental interests are well represented there, informally and throughout the current process. It is well known that several scientists with a strong marine reserve agenda are called upon for advice behind the scenes. This is counterproductive to a fair and informed process. Coastal communities need to have a voice at this level. At a minimum, advice and suggestions from the coastal caucus should be solicited and welcomed on a regular basis.

The same basic questions have been asked over and over again by fishermen, coastal communities, and our coastal caucus and perhaps even by the environmental community now as well – given the Governor’s recent statements. Answer them honestly through OPAC.

The Governor should send a letter to the coastal ports and communities which submitted letters and resolutions as well as to fishermen’s groups and the coastal caucus saying something like “I have heard your concerns and appreciate your constructive suggestions. I would appreciate your endorsement of marine reserves in Oregon’s waters if the following modifications/changes to the process are made --- and then name the changes. Refer to the Emerging Suggestions and Themes section of this memo and the suggestions below for the kind of changes which should be made. It would help if the Governor asked for coastal assistance and support directly.

Aside from any personal opinions we might have about marine reserves, we put forth the following based on our extensive experience in coastal outreach and education, including fishermen, with Oregon Sea Grant. We do this to advise as to the path most likely to achieve the Governor’s goal of establishing marine reserves in Oregon’s waters. This goal is apparently fully supported by environmental groups. But to successfully engage coastal communities and fishermen in a process leading toward the desired result, we recommend the following:

1) Slow down the nomination process to allow time for an effective outreach and education program to be designed and implemented and for OPAC to answer all the basic questions which have come forth. (Is three months enough time?)

2) Revisit some decisions which have already been made (by OPAC?) – such as “networks” and “no take”. Are these really necessary and, if so, why? Be open to other options on a case by case basis. Relaxing the “network” and “no take” requirements will go a long way toward gaining local support for the process.

3) Design an outreach/education program overseen by an individual/organization (Outreach Coordinator) which knows how to do effective outreach and education on the coast, with all stakeholders and not seen to be locked into a specific agenda. (Outreach coordinator/Sea Grant perhaps?) The outreach/education program must be adequately funded.

4) The Outreach Coordinator should work with the MRWG Outreach Committee.

5) The Outreach Coordinator should provide assistance and encouragement to the formation of local marine reserve advisory groups in coastal communities. The FINE model is one that could be utilized. Another is to encourage coastal ports to form these committees with fishermen and other stakeholders such as local environmental leaders.

6) Conduct objective public discussion forums about marine reserves. Clearly state the Governor’s goals and objectives in seeking to site marine reserves in Oregon’s waters. Provide good public education about the state of our ocean and marine resource management. Acknowledge the positive changes in our fisheries (changes in management strategies and goals of sustainable resource management, fishing gear modifications to reduce bycatch and harm to the sea bottom). To not do this will be insulting to fishermen (and our natural resource agencies) and further alienate fishermen from this process. Acknowledge positive contributions of marine reserves in others areas of the world. Acknowledge failures as well.

Without a meaningful public education process, coastal communities and fishermen
will be subjected to a campaign (which has already begun) of misinformation
which could characterize them as uninformed and uncaring about our natural
resources. This also puts our coastal caucus and other coastal elected officials in a
difficult position.

7) Start small. Use Port Orford as one of the sites and perhaps just one or two other small areas. Be adaptive based on performance. Expand based on performance.
(Refer to Emerging Suggestions and Themes section.)

8) Anyone, not just the local community advisory groups or fishermen, should be able to nominate a site or sites (to be fair and open). Give strong consideration to proposals that are developed by coastal groups working with informed fishermen and scientists.

9) The principle goal of the coastal committees will be to nominate suitable local site(s) for consideration as marine reserves based on local knowledge and expertise or articulate reasonable reasons why no local site is suitable.

10) Form a standing fishermen’s advisory committee to OPAC to serve as an ongoing advisory body for the STAC, MRWG and OPAC as this process goes forward.

11) Use the fishermen’s advisory committee, STAC and MRWG to review nominated sites and establish rationale why those sites cannot be exposed to any extraction/fisheries if the sites are to be “no-take”. Don’t hold hard to only “no take” reserves if habitat protection goals can be met.

12) Proactively seek and value recommendations from the coastal caucus.

13) Keep communication channels clear and open between OPAC, MRWG, the Outreach Coordinator and OPAC advisory committees, and the community marine reserve working groups.



These are our initial recommendations. The Governor’s office staff needs to establish a basis for trust (which does not currently exist) in this process. It will take more time to really think all of these through and come up with a process which is fair, honest and reasonable and which will gather the most widespread support. But we do think that if many of these things are done, the likelihood of a process which leads to the successful siting of marine reserves in our Territorial Sea improves dramatically.

Appendix 1

State Policy, Governor’s Statement and Lessons Learned

The legislature did include local involvement participation within Oregon's Ocean Resources Management law, as quoted below.

"It is the policy of the State of Oregon to . . . ensure that the
Ocean Policy Advisory Council will work closely with coastal local
governments to incorporate in its activities coastal local government
and resident concerns, coastal economic sustainability and expertise of
coastal residents." ORS 196.420(6).

It is the policy of the State of Oregon to . . . encourage ocean
resources development which is environmentally sound and economically
beneficial to adjacent local governments and to the state." ORS
196.420(2).

"The Legislative Assembly finds that . . . it is important that the
State of Oregon develop and maintain a program of ocean resources
management to promote management of living and nonliving marine
resources within state jurisdiction, to insure effective participation
in federal agency planning and management of ocean resources and uses
which may affect this state, and to coordinate state agency management
of ocean resources with local government management of coastal
shorelands and resources." ORS 196.415(6).

An important factor in the OPAC and state agency rulemaking process will be to consider the economic impact of siting reserves. The Food Fish Management Policy states:

“506.109 Food fish management policy. It is the policy of the State of Oregon that food fish shall be managed to provide the optimum economic, commercial, recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of this state. In furtherance of this policy, the goals of food fish management are:

(1) To maintain all species of food fish at optimum levels in all suitable waters of the state and prevent the extinction of any indigenous species.
(2) To develop and manage the lands and waters of this state in a manner that will optimize the production, utilization and public enjoyment of food fish.
(3) To permit an optimum and equitable utilization of available food fish.
(4) To develop and maintain access to the lands and waters of the state and the food fish resources thereon.
(5) To regulate food fish populations and the utilization and public enjoyment of food fish in a manner that is compatible with other uses of the lands and waters of the state and provides optimum commercial and public recreational benefits.
(6) To preserve the economic contribution of the sports and commercial fishing industries in a manner consistent with sound food fish management practices.
(7) To develop and implement a program for optimizing the return of Oregon food fish for Oregon’s recreational and commercial fisheries. [1975 c.253 §15; 1985 c.529 §2] “make decisions that allow for the best social, economic and recreational utilization of (fish and) wildlife resources by all user groups” (ORS496.012(7)”.

Governor’s Statement

In a follow up letter to the fishermen invited to meet with the Governor to discuss marine reserves and wave energy, the Governor stated “I want to reassure you that I am committed to ensuring that future wave energy development and establishment of a limited system of marine reserves do not interrupt traditional fishing practices on Oregon’s TerritorialSea.” He also stated that “The fishing industry must play an essential role in wave energy and marine reserve siting decisions and I hope that you will continue to engage in these two important proposals.”

Still, many questions come to mind - how can marine reserves not impact fisheries, how large is large, how small is small, does “limited system” still mean network, is the timeline still intact?

Lessons Learned

Advice found in follow-up recommendations in other areas which have gone through the process of establishing marine reserves emphasizes the need to involve the public and stakeholders early on and to be receptive to their recommendations. They should be part of the process from the beginning. One example:

From "Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas" (IUCN, 1996), edited by Graeme Kelleher:

“The fundamental criterion for success in MPA planning and management is to bring in from the beginning every significant sector that will affect, or be affected by, the MPA. The reasons for this are simple. First, if those in a sector like fisheries or tourism are not involved from the beginning, they will be inclined to see the MPA planners and managers as either not interested in their sector or actively trying to disadvantage their interests. Second, no expert, however competent, has the detailed knowledge that would allow him or her to define adequately the interests of most sectors.”

[Chromaflage]

What?!?!!

How does the almighty Gov. Spitsalot plan to implement MPAs without interrupting fishing? I know there's more in this to comment about - but this statement stood out like a sore thumb.

Also, does anyone know if John Holloway is a member here? I'd be curious about where the RFA is on this.

“I want to reassure you that I am committed to ensuring that future wave energy development and establishment of a limited system of marine reserves do not interrupt traditional fishing practices on Oregon’s TerritorialSea.”

[Salty Walty]

I have been asking the same question. Many people were not invited to attend. I have personally given Greg my #s., I am in the phonebook and also reachable through ifish. I have also been asked to be informed of any OPAC Meetings in my area. John was not notified nor were the local OPAC members so I guess I should not feel that left out.

[tailchaser]

Just goes to show you, they're doing things "NOT" to include us. They even have a fox in charge of a hen house, with the guy on the board of Steelheaders. I have some inside knowledge that this might change in the future however, because he doen't have the interest of steelheaders, and if he is chosen to stay, there might be a huge migration of members heading towards RFA immediately.

tc