Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Panel ranks marine reserve proposals
Friday, October 24, 2008 | No comments posted.
Related Links
State agencies gave five out of 20 marine reserves proposals “high” ratings overall, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife representatives reported Thursday. The Ocean Policy Advisory Council is meeting in Florence for two days of discussion about creating marine reserves.
Seven proposals received “low” grades and the remaining eight proposals fell somewhere in the middle.
Criteria
• whether the reserve met the ecological goals.
• if it avoided significant economic impacts to users and coastal communities
• whether there was sufficient collaboration with user groups and how well it could be enforced.
Each also received an overall rating. The ratings scale was low, medium-low, medium, medium-high and high. Some of the proposals overlapped.
How they fared
• Tillamook Head: Low. There was little opportunity to resolve economic impacts.
• Cape Falcon I and II: Medium. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Three Arch Rocks I and II: Low. There was little opportunity to resolve economic impacts.
• Cascade Head I and II: Medium-low. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts and difficulty in enforcement.
• Cape Foulweather I and II: Medium-low. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration or use of an MPA to minimize economic.
• Whale Cove to Devil’s Punchbowl: Medium-low. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Otter Rock: High. Potential to be a pilot project based on extent of collaboration. Need to explore the effectiveness of small site and possibly reconfigure, if warranted.
• 20 Miracle Miles: Low. Little opportunity to resolve economic impacts
• Cape Perpetua I and II: High. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration and/or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Siltcoos: Low. Minimal ecological benefits and low collaboration and enforcement
• Cape Arago: Low. Little opportunity to resolve economic impacts
• Seven Devils: Medium. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration and/or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Redfish Rocks: High. Potential to be a pilot project based on extent of collaboration. Need to evaluate economic impacts to fishermen not involved in the Port Orford Ocean Resource Team economic survey.
• Mack Reef I: High. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration and/or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Mack Reef II: Low. Little opportunity to resolve economic impacts.
— Susan Chambers, staff writer
Seven proposals received “low” grades and the remaining eight proposals fell somewhere in the middle.
Criteria
• whether the reserve met the ecological goals.
• if it avoided significant economic impacts to users and coastal communities
• whether there was sufficient collaboration with user groups and how well it could be enforced.
Each also received an overall rating. The ratings scale was low, medium-low, medium, medium-high and high. Some of the proposals overlapped.
How they fared
• Tillamook Head: Low. There was little opportunity to resolve economic impacts.
• Cape Falcon I and II: Medium. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Three Arch Rocks I and II: Low. There was little opportunity to resolve economic impacts.
• Cascade Head I and II: Medium-low. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts and difficulty in enforcement.
• Cape Foulweather I and II: Medium-low. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration or use of an MPA to minimize economic.
• Whale Cove to Devil’s Punchbowl: Medium-low. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Otter Rock: High. Potential to be a pilot project based on extent of collaboration. Need to explore the effectiveness of small site and possibly reconfigure, if warranted.
• 20 Miracle Miles: Low. Little opportunity to resolve economic impacts
• Cape Perpetua I and II: High. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration and/or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Siltcoos: Low. Minimal ecological benefits and low collaboration and enforcement
• Cape Arago: Low. Little opportunity to resolve economic impacts
• Seven Devils: Medium. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration and/or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Redfish Rocks: High. Potential to be a pilot project based on extent of collaboration. Need to evaluate economic impacts to fishermen not involved in the Port Orford Ocean Resource Team economic survey.
• Mack Reef I: High. Further evaluation could be used to better understand social/economic impacts and investigate reconfiguration and/or use of an MPA to minimize economic impacts.
• Mack Reef II: Low. Little opportunity to resolve economic impacts.
— Susan Chambers, staff writer
The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Not already registered?
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines