OPAC Report Newport for 3/28

[black magic]

Out of sheer laziness I am posting the report of Susan Chambers, Coos Bay World newspaper for two reasons.
1. It saves me time (refer to laziness above)
2. It is well written as mine would likely be less so.

Process in a state of flux �” again
By Susan Chambers, Staff Writer
Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:13 AM PDT


NEWPORT – Confusion.
Next steps.

The governor's executive order, meant to allay coastal residents' fears about marine reserves and wave energy, threw a small monkey wrench into the Ocean Policy Advisory Council process when the group met Friday in Newport.

It didn’t stop OPAC members and the public from engaging in lively discussion and moving forward in small but incremental steps.

On Wednesday, Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed an executive order that transferred state leadership of the marine reserves process out of the governor’s office and into the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Instead of the governor’s natural resources policy adviser Jessica Hamilton seated at the council table, ODFW director Roy Elicker sat at the table and joined in the discussion of marine reserves.

The executive order also delayed the marine reserves nomination deadline by a month.

The governor took into account fishermen’s comments in November, reactions to chief of Staff Chip Terhune’s visit to the coast, a memo from OPAC’s Science and Technical Advisory Committee and comments from public outreach meetings.

Most all of the comments reiterated the need to slow down the process. Take more time for adequate consideration from the public and for scientific review.

Still, folks at OPAC weren’t happy.

“Clearly, they didn’t read the public comments,” Curry County Commissioner Lucie LaBonte said during the public comment period.

Many coastal residents aren’t interested in no-take marine reserves, where fishing or activities that cause a disturbance to the ecosystem would be prohibited. Consider instead, LaBonte said, the greater idea of marine protected areas or research areas – both areas that allow some flexibility of use.

“We’re rather disappointed with the governor’s executive order,” Recreational Fishing Alliance member John Holloway said. “We still see that as the cart before the horse.”

It does nothing to increase the trust between the public and the state, there still is no plan for baseline studies to be done and public buy-in of the process may have gotten worse, he said.

“We’re very concerned,” Holloway added of the transfer of leadership to ODFW. “We trust ODFW. It’s taken years to build that trust. ODFW’s been thrown in the middle of this.”

Holloway said sport and commercial fishermen are concerned about funding. Will ODFW use sport and commercial license fees to close or restrict fishermen’s access to parts of the ocean?

Elicker said after the meeting that details still are being worked out, but the use of user fees is unlikely. His sense, after talks he’s had with the governor’s office, is that the bulk of the funding for marine reserves would come from the state’s general fund. Some of the various state agencies’ budgets, though, will go to working with OPAC and the marine reserves process – much the same as has been going on for several years.

“I’m not thinking that any big piece of (ODFW user fees) would be used to fund marine reserves,” Elicker said.

The issue comes up at a time when all state agencies are working on their budgets. Fish and Wildlife soon will hold public meetings to consider public input on its budget.

And Kulongoski, via the executive order, wanted to maintain some order to the marine reserves process so he could request funding from the legislature.

Though some folks still are distrustful of the governor’s latest plan, not everyone spoke against it.

“I think the executive order is consistent with ‘slow down the process’ somewhat,” Curry County resident Peg Regan said.

Late in the afternoon at the Best Western Agate Beach, OPAC members began discussion of the next steps in the process.

That’s where the confusion came in.

“I’m looking for a way to be responsive to the public and the (fishermen) who voiced their concerns … and yet provide a model for the Legislature to put their arms around and calculate the interim costs of marine reserves,” council member Frank Warrens said.

Maybe instead of calling sites “nominations,” call them “suggested sites,” he said.

“Maybe it will reduce a little bit of the angst among coastal residents,” Warrens added.

Other terms were thrown out: pilot projects. Research reserves. Study areas.

That was it.

Study areas.

Folks could suggest areas for which future marine reserves could be established, pending study of the area. The benefit would be that those areas would be general enough that the Legislature could begin looking at funding for studies such as bathymetry mapping, existing uses of the area, socioeconomic studies. Traditional uses – fishing, transiting, diving, etc. – still would be allowed while the area was studied.

Then, later, OPAC can consider a formal nomination of the site for a marine reserve if it believes the studies have shown the site to be a good candidate. Then the Legislature would have to approve a bigger funding package to include even more comprehensive studies and to account for enforcement.

Using interim study areas holds the potential to slow down the process for another couple of years.

Still, some council members were unsure whether the public would buy into the process.

“Does changing the name from marine reserve to study area have a chance of increasing or decreasing the trust in OPAC?” council member and Coos County Commissioner John Griffith asked.

“I think that should fit the intent of the executive order,” Elicker said after the meeting, and also allay fears among the public that marine reserve nominations will go forward immediately.

Griffith was unsure. Learning of the executive order on Thursday was too soon to consider everything – public comments, the order, current processes.

“I think we needed more time to cool off,” he said.

[Mark Mc]

Thanks for this John. Many of the points here can be described as a strategy shift..... the slowing down, fewer sites, full evaluation of a site, etc. This kinda makes me laugh, shake head, roll eyes. Know why? It sounds a lot like the original OPAC strategy some 6 - 7 years ago. You know, the strategy that got de-railed by the governor's staff?

So we go through all this thrash, to arrive back at the same spot of 6 years ago.

That is some pendulum.

[black magic]

You're right Mark. The process has gone full circle. The OPAC process has been the most frustrating that I have ever experienced. It has been like playing a game of football in dense fog officiated by chimpanzees with mobile goalposts.
Attending a PFMC meeting is almost like a vacation. There everything is fairly well defined by federal statutes and management plans. If you have an agenda and it fits with the required science and rationale and you can sell it, often you will prevail. Not so in this process.

[ron m]

Thanks for posting the article John. She got it correct except that for some folks there the level of frustration and anger was higher than she indicated in her article.

Irony--The governor's chief of staff does a tour of the coast in Jan. to hear the concerns of coastal rsidents. One of the concerns he hears is the changing "orders" from the governor to OPAC and another is the top down approach with a short timeline. So what does the governor do but change the order again and extend the timeline by a month! And he issues an "executive order" that basically says ODFW will facilitate OPAC's work and the coastal communities will have a few months to organize and determine appropriate sites for MRs. And the time they will have is in the summer when the fishermen are working long days!

The governor dumped the MR issue he and his office have been "managing" (or more correctly, mismanaging) for years into ODFWs hands. I'm very worried that ODFW has been put in an untenable position. Anyone want to be that this will aleviate the concerns of coastal communities? If so, I'll take that bet.

The governor is the chief executive of the state and the agencies are probably obligated to abide by his EO and the direction he establishes. IMO, he is now using state agencies for political purposes. ODFW is the lead agency, but others are also involved. IMO, the agencies should be working for the "people", not for the governor.

You should read the governor's letter to OPAC and the executive order. Jeez, I'm so aggravated by his letter to OPAC, the EO, and this situation that I better quit now or I won't be able to maintain civility in what I write.
ron m

[Salty Walty]

Thanks John. I spent the evening and this morning trying to compile what actually went on. The coming full circle was one of the conclusions that I came up with too. The potential damage that this could do to ODFW and MRP is not good. I personally do not equate them with the dead horse that the Gov. and his EO has saddled them with. I would also like to point out that the Process that OPAC has been following has been that of the Gov. and his Natural Resources Office.

This editorial from the Staff of the Eugene (I don't like fishing) fishwrap was not doing a bad job until the last paragraph.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms...11&sid=5&fid=2

[fishwhenican]

Originally Posted by Salty Walty

This editorial from the Staff of the Eugene (I don't like fishing) fishwrap was not doing a bad job until the last paragraph.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms...11&sid=5&fid=2

I doubt, at this time, that they would want to print another 850 word guest viewpoint from me. Although it is almost a new month, and I could certainly refute some of the info published.

Faithfully reporting to you from the Peoples Republic of Eugene.

Mark

[Seahunt]

My problem with the process whether it is now or from the start, whether it's the governor's group or ODFW is timing of nominations to cast MRs. Once nominations have been suggested and whoever the lead group is select their alternatives that is when the public needs time to formulate a response. This is not a war where we plan a response for any possible form of attack and at the time of attack at the north wall we have pre-programmed generic response(this is what the proposed timeline allows at best). Depending on where the MRs are sited, their sizes recommended, response to nominations are where the time is needed.

Like Griffith said in the letter above, "we need time to cool off". I think the public will need time to cool off and make knowledgeable responses to the nominations. That does not mean a month or two. This whole process of MR selections should be based on where, why and how not planning to get by the public with something they don't think they want because they don't know what it is until it's too late!
I guess I could have said this in on sentence but it seems with any pro MR person I talk to they don't understand.
I should have read this thread earlier before I started a similar one that didn't discuss the issues as focused. I want to be focused when this process gets past nomination, so I keep reading and talking. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.