2006 CONFERENCE WORKSHOP RESPONSES

Issue II: NATIONAL SANCTUARY

How would you advise the Governor on his proposal for an Oregon Coast National Marine Sanctuary?

Table 1:

The governor should expedite OPAC process by virtue of his authority—he needs to provide money, staff, and resources to facilitate results.

Lack of governor’s leadership is an obstacle to progress.

Coordinate sanctuaries with Washington and California Governors  to ensure an Oregon NMS would provide support to Channel Islands and Olympic NMS/planning.

Regard the sanctuary as a regional ocean system with coordination, objectives and goals.

Table 2:

He must do the public scoping process—make presentations about the sanctuary concept; get ideas about how it should be sized (not just “love it” vs. “hate it”).

Hold scoping meetings inland  and along coast; it’s the state’s coast, the state’s potential sanctuary.

We need to produce maps of habitat area, and human use areas. And must get the coastal habitat mapping initiative off the ground.

The ecosystem-based approach is the right one.

The coast-wide approach (the entire coast of Oregon) creates too many problems; it is too big. But there are many options that could be considered that are oriented around important ecological areas in Oregon.

Find the compelling ecological stories and evaluate a possible sanctuary over each of them, not the whole coast.

Table 3:

A National Marine Sanctuary will provide access to federal funds but also federal authority.

A question is: Under a NMS would Oregon have autonomy and flexibility to incorporate: fisheries; marine reserves (OPAC), local communities and goals.

Table 4:

Start with a marine reserves from Pt Gregory to Cape Arego with maybe five reserves.

Create a sanctuary, with a system of reserves within, but these not publicly accepted just reserves where you get more bang for buck.

Start with reserves then later build a sanctuary around them though there could be conflict between state and federal.

Prior to making or defining a marine protective area ensure public buy-in through extensive educational program using scientific studies on pros and cons of establishing MPAs.

It’s important to provide general public input, not just stakeholders.

They should not be based on total consensus but based on science to address needs weighed against issues.

Table 5:

Pros:

Brings federal funding and national recognition.

Promotes EBM and ocean stewardship.

Needs much more stakeholder input included.

Has clear goals and management plan.

Good for prohibiting oil drilling and ocean mining.

Cons:

Proposed size is too big and unrealistic.

No clear goals for it yet

The differences between NMS and marine reserves (MRs) unclear and confuse public; need to clearly integrate NMS and MRs with clear goals and objectives for both.

Listen to natural and social scientists regarding goals and objectives.

Table 6:

A Marine Sanctuary for the whole coast is a 'non-starter.'

Criteria should be equitable in respect to other uses such as fishing interests.

If concerned about oil/gas then focus on those areas specifically.

There is concern over state participation in decisions.

Table 7:

How far upstream would a NMS designation protect water quality? Jurisdictions must be clarified.

Build on existing research sites.

Our discussion group is still unclear ON MANAGEMENT… WHO IS IN REAL CONTROL?

We support more funding for research.

Table 8:

Local input is necessary for a coast-wide NMS, especially on the South Coast where we don’t have OPEC representation.

We don’t need a strengthened NOAA with another set of regulatory hurdles to overcome in order to get anything accomplished.

A sanctuary may be necessary to protect ocean environment from intrusive activities like sea-mining, oil/gas exploitation, etc. but should preserve/encourage activities like fishing.

Table 9:

A border to border (CA –WA) sanctuary would essentially cede OR coastal waters to Federal Government; therefore shrink proposal or drop proposal.

Major concern is loss of local control.

If NMS … then Governor K should demand strong OR leadership over sanctuary Governing Board.

Pursue NMS only if does not cede local control to Fed Govt.

Large NMS—requires plan to have more activities. A smaller NMS can be more restrictive.

Provide for accommodations for fiber-optic cable landings.

Table 10:

Let the public see the options and experiences of other sanctuaries.

Keep on talking about it.

Try to take away fears and myths.

Continue to work out federal/state relationship on management.

Highlight the educational opportunities tat can happen with NMS.

Find best example of a NMS and use it to develop Oregon’s option(s).

IDEAS: Thankyouocean.org campaign in CA. Work with youth to get the idea going.

Table 11:

A sanctuary has to fit Oregon—must match local needs but it is a viable idea.

Governor wants autonomy and Federal money—can it be negotiated?

Yes, we should have one.

Must be a state thing, not a county thing; Governor should seek funding.

State should look at reserves first then maybe a sanctuary offshore but just a portion.

Current structure of sanctuary program does not meet governor’s desire for local control.

Perhaps a smaller scale would work.

Need to make a stronger case than CA and WA one.

Is there a special place?

Dead Zones? Can a sanctuary help them?

Scientists and users could look at biology and seamounts/banks and connectivity and pick a representative assemblage.

Table 12:

(All participants at this table) are in favor of a sanctuary.

Possible Federal money is good.

There are concerns about the manager being able to overrule an advisory committee.

Table 13:

Control/Size/Location?

Clarify Marine Sanctuary from governor.

Clarify/define State, Local federal roles.

Guarantee State control?

Another layer of bureaucracy.

Fisheries expand beyond territorial sea.

Guarantee minimal impact on fisheries.

Define Oregon model.

Need more resources/capacity to educate/outreach.

Input from those affected.

Table 14:

A sanctuary is a good idea.

The governor must, however, back up to where he should have started—work with scientists, local governments and stakeholders to scope out a new plan that has local and inland support (the oceans belong to everyone in the state) and is of appropriate scale.

Table 15:

Start smaller to work kinks out.

It should be non-political-not managed by governor—policies should be consistent and laid down effectively so that they don’t change with each governor.

Start bigger with different management areas on the whole coast—too difficult to go back to the public many times.

More education of public on marine sanctuary is needed.

Table 16:

Get whatever we can get—a reserve or sanctuary.

Need to get fishermen at the table.

Can learn from reserve experience in a limited area.

Whole coast is unrealistic; but, some type of sanctuary would be appropriate near pointing (?) reserves.

Not whole coast but representative reserve and offshore areas.

Can have areas with fishing gear restrictions.

Should pursue if it helps get federal funding.

Prevent offshore drilling.

Encompassing whole coast avoids pandering or picking on a certain part of coast.

Scientists can help identify biological hot spots that should receive sanctuary designation with especially sensitive areas designated as reserves.

 

PDF Print Complete Copy of all 2006 Conference Workshop Responses

Back | Continue...