Oregon's Proposed Marine Reserves: politics in getting MPAs in the US northwest

Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, are aquatic reserves that are designed to restrict or prohibit activities deemed harmful to the marine environment. This has typically meant strict regulations on commercial or sport fishing activities but in some cases it has extended further to include other industrial or recreational activities. What is or is not allowed depends on where the reserve is located, its size, and the environmental and economic considerations impacted by the reserve.

Some reserves are quite large, like the South Pacific's multi-national Pacific Oceanscape or Hawaii's Northwestern Islands. Or they can be smaller and localized, like California's central coast marine sanctuaries that include the Channel Islands. But as a global total, marine protect areas cover only a mere one percent of the world's oceans.

The challenge with all MPAs is that they are the end result of a political process, and to deal with that can be as exciting as watching paint dry. Thought-provoking pictures and images and reams of scientific data are all part of the process in considering a marine reserve, but ultimately it boils down to government officials, conservation and environmental interests, and economic interests all trying to hammer out a compromise that the interested or effected parties can live with. And this can be a drawn out process at best.

Along the U.S.'s Oregon coast lies some of the country's most rugged and beautiful coastline and marine ecosystems. Rugged, but just as fragile as any tropical reef system when faced with overfishing, pollution, or any other man-made abuse. The state has been at work to determine the scope of possible MPAs along the Cape Arago area, developing as many as eight different proposals. A recommendation committee has been formed to whittle that number down to just three for public comment.

MPAs follow a process very similar to our legislative process in the U.S. A proposal is put forth, much like a bill, and then it goes to a committee where it is tweaked and amended, then brought forth for public comment, and then ultimately voted on - that's it in a simplified nutshell. Anywhere along the way, it can be derailed by lobby groups or public sentiment and pushed from an internal governmental process to an open ballot initiative, which can be a more drawn out and openly politicized battle.

In 2008, Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski asked the state's Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) for recommendations for coastal marine reserves. Thus began a lengthy process that included environmental groups and commercial and sport fishing interests. Oregon has several major commercial fishing industries, including salmon and crab, and so the delicate political maneuvering began to reach a suitable compromise. A committee was formed to try and develop proposals that would be at least close to acceptable to all involved.

As reported in the Oregon The World, OPAC committee chair Jim Pex said, "There's a strong political force trying to get as much area in reserves as possible, and a strong force wanting no reserves at all. . . As with any group that is diverse, it takes time to get everyone to move in one direction."

To insure that the process would move forward, the committee adopted several interesting rulings:

• No proposal would be considered that inhibited salmon fishing or crabbing.
• There is no known biological problem that a marine reserve would solve at this time.
• Additionally, funding for ongoing government research would be required to justify the reserve. No funding, no reserve.

Personally, I found these to be some interesting concessions. Once again, an economic consideration (salmon fishing and crabbing) was given a higher priority over the environmental benefit. If it's bad for business then nature will just have to wait. The problem is, as we have seen with other commercial fishing industries, nature doesn't wait; it continues to degrade until the industry collapses due to a decimated fish population.

The second point is a curious one. If the position is to not recognize any biological problem that a marine reserve would solve, then why have the reserve? Or is it a case of getting commercial interests to cooperate by not ascribing any problem specifically to their activities? MPAs have already been shown to increase sealife populations and this has even had a positive effect on commercial fish populations outside of the reserves boundaries. And as I have reported in previous posts, there is a growing issue of increased populations of Humboldt squid all along the eastern Pacific - a situation which possibly could be mitigated by marine reserves which would support an increase in natural predators to the squid (right now, Humboldt squid can pose a serious threat to a multi-million dollar salmon fishery).

In addressing the research funding issue, to insure that there will be continued research to justify any reserve established, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is investigating ways of procuring funding, made difficult in a "no more government spending" climate. Non-governmental funding is being looked into through the use of foundations, trusts, and even federal appropriations.

OPAC is hoping that the final proposals will be brought before the public for comment by the end of the year. The process is an elaborate one and, as we have seen with other U.S. legislation, the end result can be considerably watered down from what was perhaps once envisioned. It certainly is not the "sexy" part of ocean policy but beyond all the fund-raising or issue-raising parties and events, after all the videos and slide presentations, this is what it boils down to: hard-fought negotiations and back room politics.

Hopefully the end result is something that provides the oceans with a real benefit. And, hopefully, mankind learns that by doing that, it too becomes a beneficiary.

Read about Oregon's MPA politics in The World.

Ocean Dead Zones: low oxygen areas are still growing

Ocean researchers and many conservationists have heard of oceanic low-oxygen or "dead zones" wherein large areas of ocean have lower-than-normal levels of oxygen. To a large extent, these areas are normal or somewhat predictable - deepwater and seasonal movements of water; all part of the ocean's normal process of oxygen intake, use, and replenishment.

But there are more and more signs from throughout the world that these dead zones are becoming more frequent and growing in size. From both coasts of Africa, to South America to the Pacific Northwest, dead zones are becoming a real problem, killing off some aquatic species, displacing others, and affecting the ocean's relationship with the atmosphere - a relationship that provides a majority of our breathable air.

A recent article in the online McClatchy newspaper outlines what has been happening in the Pacific Northwest, along the Oregon/Washington coastline. Some scientists believe it's too soon to tell whether the root cause - a warming of the surface waters that acts as a cap to suppress the normal cycle of deepwater to shallow, or upwellings and downwellings - is due to global warming, but it's high on their list of suspects.

Some might think that it's a sign of ocean acidification, but this is a different process taking place here, as well illustrated in the article. However, in any case, the net effect of the coast of Oregon and Washington is tangible, with piles of dead Dungeness crab and 25-year old sea stars littering a sea floor covered with a higher-than-normal bacteria layer.

"Areas of hypoxia, or low oxygen, have long existed in the deep ocean. These areas — in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans — appear to be spreading, however, covering more square miles, creeping toward the surface and in some places, such as the Pacific Northwest, encroaching on the continental shelf within sight of the coastline.

'The depletion of oxygen levels in all three oceans is striking,' said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle."

If these low-oxygen zones continue to increase in size and/or frequency, the ocean ecology will have to make adjustments, some that will be severe and that we will feel as they impact commercial fisheries. But scientists are not sure just how far-ranging these changes could be. After all, they have no reference models or examples to turn to - we are heading into unknown territory.

"Scientists are unsure how low oxygen levels will affect the ocean ecosystem. Bottom-dwelling species could be at the greatest risk because they move slowly and might not be able to escape the lower oxygen levels. Most fish can swim out of danger. Some species, however, such as chinook salmon, may have to start swimming at shallower depths than they're used to. Whether the low oxygen zones will change salmon migration routes is unclear.

Some species, such as jellyfish, will like the lower-oxygen water. Jumbo squid, usually found off Mexico and Central America, can survive as oxygen levels decrease and now are found as far north as Alaska."

Read entire McClatchy article.

Northern Rockies Wolves: once again under the gun

Wolves are under the gun again, literally.

Until recently, Northern Rockies gray wolves had been on the Endangered Species List and therefore protected from extermination. While their numbers had been recovering, many conservation organizations felt the the government's decision to remove the wolf from the endangered species list was premature. It was questionable as to whether there are sufficient number of breeding pairs. But, with the increasing numbers there is the inevitable occasional loss of livestock, and so the future fate of the wolf was put into question once again as pressure mounted to find a way to placate ranchers with some sort of "acceptable" sustainable population figure.

Unfortunately, it was decided that the magic number was to be less than the current population. In August, it was reported that Idaho was issuing over 10,000 hunting licenses for the taking of 220 wolves - out of a population reported to be somewhere between 846 and 1,000. Conservation organizations rallied their legal forces to reinstate the wolves' former status and a final decision is in the hands of a judge as to an injunction against the Idaho hunt.

But in the meantime, the hunt has begun and the first kills have been reported.

And the issue is spilling over into other states. Montana is preparing to open up wolf hunting on September 15th. And there has been concern emanating from Oregon where a very small number of wolves exists, a fledgling splinter group from the larger Northern Rockies population. Conservationists are concerned that, with the reduction of wolves through open hunting, the populations ranging across all these states will be threatened due to a lack of mating prospects and lost continuum of a healthy genetic pool.

Interestingly, this is the same issue expressed regarding the loss of oceanic predators like great whites - that the loss of one population can impact another population many miles away, perhaps a population even in so-called "protected" waters, due to a loss of the gene pool mix within these migratory animals.

According to Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative of the Defenders of Wildlife, "Idaho hosts the core of the Northern Rockies wolf population, with approximately 1,000 wolves. By wiping out 220 wolves, the state will cripple the regional wolf population by isolating wolves into disconnected subgroups incapable of genetic or ecological sustainability."

"It's only a matter of time," warned Stone, "before Idaho's state legislature enforces their demand that all wolves be removed 'by whatever means necessary,' which is still the state's official policy on wolves."

Read story in Environmental News Service.

Chinook Salmon Ban: protecting vital spawning grounds

The Pacific Fishery Management Council recently banned the commercial catching of chinook salmon off the coast of California and much of Oregon. This is the second year in a row that the ban was instituted in response to record low numbers of chinook salmon counted in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system - a primary spawning area for the salmon.

In years past, the number of salmon was around 250,000, with a one-time recorded high of 800,000. In 2008, only 66,286 were counted returning to the river to spawn. While any commercial fishing would have a detrimental effect on the remaining population as they return to the open ocean, the root cause of the problem apparently lies in the conditions of the rivers themselves.

Subject to water pollution and water reduction (siphoning off water to quench the large thirst of agricultural regions in California), in addition to reduced food sources from a warmer Pacific and less robust breeding with wild versus hatchery raised salmon - all have impacted the population which is expected to increase slightly in the fall but still be far below the council's recommended minimum goal of 122,000.

Approximately 2,200 fisherman have been put out of work and received federal disaster aid because of the ban but, perhaps surprisingly, many support the ban as the only way to insure the long-term future of the salmon population. Their primary concern is California water policy that seems to be favoring agriculture at the expense of critical salmon spawning grounds.