Sanctuary Designation - Hilo Comments

Scoping Meeting Comments
Hilo, Big Island, Hawai‘i
Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 6:00 p.m.

Please note that these are the raw comments extracted from the scoping meeting held at the location listed above. They were edited for the purpose of clarity where necessary. Duplicate comments were not repeated. A synthesis of comments will be available soon.

(MHI) Main Hawaiian Islands
(NWHI) Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

• Manage area properly. WESPAC has done it properly. Millions of resources WESPAC should continue. Lobster is closed and should reopen. Money - Main HI islands benefit from lobster and fish harvesting in the NWHI so should continue.
• Exploitation of area should focus on value of resource and protect it.
• Need to ensure sustainability so resources are not over used. Experts evaluate levels that can be taken and still maintain resource.
• Would like to see protection of fisheries, like establishing no-take zones. In order to support commercial interests there needs to be area where there is no commercial extraction.
• Survey to ID key environments. Cherry pick save the best. Where birds reproduce- no use
• Resources from NWHI will move down the chain to the MHI. Seasonal fishing kapu system may help to preserve the fishing resources.
• No shark finning.
• Not enough enforcement, especially to enforce foreign vessels like Japanese.
• Need to ensure that there is enough funding for the enforcement.
• Needs to be regulated in a way that access is evenly distributed, not just for the rich.
• Really concerned about native Hawaiian access. Native Hawaiian as caretakers and enforcement personnel.
• Should be for all not just who can afford to go up there.
• Business, culture, research, maybe come tourism.
• Cultural rights should always remain.
• Should use fishermen as a resource to see changes in the area, like decreases in size of sharks that were observed by a Korean fisherman.
• Need to protect this area to protect is as a nursery.
• Keep the lobster fishery closed because it has been mismanaged.
• The NWHI are like our Galapagos. Should not just look at it to make money.
• Like to see limited tourism in NWHI. Maybe to generate money for management of the area. Native or otherwise- get best resource people.
• HI Galapagos protect it keep lobster closed.
• Aquarium fish, mining of coral should be forbidden. Our nursery. Need to protect this area to protect it as a nursery. Keep lobster fishery closed because it has been mismanaged.
• Concern about NWHI as a sanctuary for endangered and threatened marine species. It is one of the few places on the planet that has an intact predator/prey species distribution. Greatest hope is that the research is coordinated and ecosystem based. Current ecosystem management is not good. Should manage using precautionary approach.
• Not saying close entirely manage better. Enjoy w/o leaving heavy footprint
• Coordinated research ecosystem research. Many marine reserves and no take zones needed.
• What authority US have to say US territory. Kingdom of HI.
• Might want to look at a marriage of ideas to manage this area. Marriage of ideas between Native Hawaiian people and US govt. Must recognize/accept jurisdiction of the Hawaiian people. Need attitude adjustment between US govt. and their acceptance of authority of Hi kingdom. US government needs to accept/recognize jurisdiction of Hawaiian people. Need to adjust attitude.
• Who has ultimate authority? Any impacts in this area affect other areas to the Pacific Basin- Alaska, California. . Mutual need for protection - CA. What is a sanctuary if uses such as sonar testing in HI by the US military are allowed? Affects the whales. Sanctuary waters yet military can do research on animals.
• Worried about illegal mining and dumping such as radioactive waste dumping by Japanese in NWHI. Tailings. US use universities example: mining tailings bringing these toxic substances on land through universities.
• Concern about misuse of government funds to create and manage NWHI ownership/jurisdiction control may change.
• Worry international controls. Need physical enforcement not just on paper
• Need enforcement to protect the marine animals to NWHI. Might use the HI system (Kapu system) this type of enforcement uses the people who are there or using the resources to enforce it. Protection. Better agency coordination and with the people. People need to be part of the protection. Will enforcement protect the resource from the foreigners or form us? Kupunas included. Concern that local people will be excluded from area but others will be allowed. Public outreach needed TV, radio, etc. let people know through groups, too. University of Hawai‘i should be more involved, Kahea should be more included in the process of getting the message out.
• No tourism, need to protect. Canoe access OK. Cultural education allowed.
• Police the place. Hawaiians government could pay them to police.
• If closed, pressure increases on rest of fisheries, as prices of fish go up and abundance goes down. In order to protect we must consider that we are part of a world ecosystem and our government / politicians is only temporary. Populations increase, food needs increase. To justify protection we need to demonstrate that a well-managed area justifies its own existence. Holding action have to demonstrate that well managed, justifies existence. Sanctuary may not be thing for long term. World population, increasing, technology going up -very easy if viable fishery. Can get funding and get there. Home grounds of fish these are areas for no take. Get info quickly on science move on it. Use existing knowledge base too fishermen.
• Concern that technological advancements will increase access to the area, will make it easier to get into the area, even for people without navigational experience.
• Should vie FL Keys NMS as an example for managing the NWHI. MPDs have really worked there and allowed fish species to recover.
• Utilize/pay fisherman to learn how to manage NWHI. Put observers on boats to count catch and see take level.
• Description survey of the BAH? Fishery.
• Midway tourism manage it but allow it - limited place people can enjoy, but still protect rest of archipelago. Total protection and closure may be unreality. Think sustainable fisheries BF, lobster, is more realistic. Zone certain areas for limited tourist access so some areas remain untouched and pristine. Genetic research and existing knowledge base of fishermen and others who know area.
• History - in order to move forward, look behind history has dictated future but failed to look back. Queen walked there. How many know? Nihau, Mokehanahana - learned of them through hula. Important to history. Should preserve history as well as natural resource.
• Enforcement satellite technology make use of it to monitor vessels and activities. Not just dock side inspection. Monitoring of vessels by transponder, vessels that can fish in NWHI. They have them. Use to track.
• Real sanctuary Monterey Bay large and strapped for resources this is larger don't let it happen here. Tax on commercial activity, ecotourism, foreign tourism, etc. International trespassers can be observed by satellite.
• All boats should have transponders so they can be tracked. Watch out for realm of Big brother w/ oversight.
• Coast guard does patrol area. No need for further enforcement.
• can't depend on CG only. Awareness.
• Limited, controlled fishing should be allowed. Lobsters. US government wrong on how deep they are.
• Bottom-fish can't come to MHI. Don't come to surface
• But, pelagic larvae.
• Kapu system there's a time to harvest lobsters and fish. There's a reason why #s are low. Its because were not using it.
• All fishing should be managed by Kapu system.
• Who knows? Kupuna. Ask them
• Use moon cycles, Kupuna to determine when to catch which fish.
• Make the hard decisions. Enforcement. CG not doing it all. Get results not just committees with no results. Kapu preservation system. Palapala always changes, but not concepts /traditional practices. Respect that. Make good /effective use of technology. Need somebody over there to oversee CG. Focus and keep it in mind of children. It will continue through generations.
• Advisory council should have more public presence. More Kupuna presence. They should outreach more to the public.
• Want all those that have access to still be permitted. I.e. fishing permits.
• Supports sanctuary. Education, for general public/tourist. Understanding of vast marine resources and how and what impacts species. Limited harvesting/fishing. All by-catch needs to be reused, not wasted. Increase funds to clean debris, pollution. Enforcement vessel needed for poachers, international vessels. Double budget to ensure adequate protection. Fish need pristine nesting grounds to reproduce and replenish the rest of the ocean. Limited access for scientific research.
• don't trust the state. Water quality in this non-confined area is a concern. Activities surrounding the sanctuary affect it directly. Should override the strategic metals program. Sanctuary needs to have the authority to stop activities that may adversely affect the water quality in NWHI. Needs to be an international program with international agencies working together for preservation of the area. Involve UN program (or use as a basis model). World biosphere reserve Program. World Heritage Site Program. Global concerns to override national concerns.
• Have public access but set up appropriate guidelines; i.e. coral reefs as museums to enjoy but strictly monitor.
• Preservation doesn't work due to human interests. Needs checks sand balances. If you don't allow access, more harm will be done vs. good. Snorkeling will allow people to see the species and appreciate the uniqueness and want to preserve.
• Agencies get together for education of the public due to sanctuary designation process. Involves the community. More awareness through media. Input is for the good of the whole. Supports strong partnerships and education. Due to the designation. Positive outreach similar to whale sanctuaries. Lessons learned in the whale sanctuary can be applied in NWHI. Makes people more ecologically sensitive.
• Based on Konohiki system and could be enforced if they were deputized. Deputize local agencies
• Modern technology should enhance/ make it easier to detect violations and enforce them.
• Have educated Hawaiians that could put native practices in to use in combination with modern technology.
• Sanctuary is a chance to enforce systems that may already be in place. Best shot to preserve this pristine area. Sanctuary could bring more $ for protections we don't have now.
• Opposition to sanctuary one more layer of regulations already strictly regulated enforcement through education not effective concerned that foreign vessels may not comply stocks are healthy, no worry WESPAC management is sufficient
• Lack of faith in State agencies additional resources would help area is to preserve things, not to harvest non-injurious recreation/ecotourism is OK also science/education support the sanctuary should use technology (GIS, satellites) for enforcement
• Historical/cultural aspects understand relationship between land and sea, dependent on each other. Native Hawaiian Konohiki/ahupuaa practices, Kapu system. Should be access for Hawaiian practitioners (have spiritual connection to their practices). Test Kapu system to see if it works as a management too, basis for research. OHA should take the lead on cultural/historical components.
• Migration fishes transit Hawaiian waters, but international management may be needed, and international awareness. Support managed ecotourism, in limited numbers. Strong guidelines needed (on #s of visitors). Limited fishing, tag and release OK.
• Fishing regulated fishing preferable to total ban
• Who enforces guidelines? Enforcement is a huge task until we know more. Total ban on access until coordinated management plan exists.
• Ecotourism should be limited and culturally based Alaska and BC native models. Determined by indigenous people
• Policies, enforcement should be Hawaiian-based
• Federal resources to train enforces
• Use renewable energy sources. I.e. wind, solar
• Serious penalties of violators, publicity (shame factor)
• Important that we be strict w/ fishermen's viewpoint and not too far. Let the corals recover because it is all part of an ecosystem that needs to get healthy before opening it up to fishing.
• Important that in some places in sanctuary it be opened up to visitors (like at midway), not for fishing or jet skis, but for snorkeling and wildlife watching. Will lose support without this.
• Concerned about access. Like the idea that the area be preserved, but support limited, non-impacting access (i.e. specifying groups for education), and make it easy like at Midway purposeful reasons to go to learn about natural science, environmental appreciation. Should be designed for all age groups for specific reasons 9 not play or vacation). Should occur at places that can handle such access.
• Conditions set forth in the implementation of the reserve should serve as a baseline for a future sanctuary. Sanctuary protections should not be less that the conditions/protections of the reserve.
• Maximum protections should be given to the reserve. If this place is allowed to recover, the marine life in MHI will improve.
• Activities like fishing, ecotourism, lobster fishing, coral harvesting, cruise ships, new fisheries, aquarium fish collection, bio-prospecting, dredging/construction, military activity, dumping (sewage), CO2 sequestration, ocean mining should not be allowed in any sanctuary anywhere. Too precious. If lost, will be gone forever.
• Would like to see protections like strong enforcement of sanctuary rules with stiff penalties; permits for all access (including research). Native access must be ensured. Fro cultural, religious, and subsistence.
• Agree that we should have maximum protections because NWHI's are breeding grounds for fishing and sustainability for other marine resources.
• Biggest concern is state areas within sanctuary. Don't want to see harvesting in state waters.
• Want to see federal rules/protections apply to state waters.
• Trend of sustainability should move toward restoration and maximum protection to return area to certain levels (how it was), to maximum health.
• Have to allow limited access for general public used as an educational tool (good PR). One way would be to allow boats to come in but install moorings for boats to tie up to. (Not cruise ships smaller than 80). Allow snorkeling to look. There will be impacts, but still, can't shut it off won't have net positive effect.
• Impacts of snorkeling will have less damage than things like fishing/ spearing (harvesting). If public is going to be there, wildlife viewing should be allowed, but harvesting should not.
• Limited access should be allowed because couldn't fully appreciate it, unless one can go there. Need this to get public support.
• Concerned that if fed. Government. Is going to make promises of protection there needs to be enough/adequate funding (resources) to do the job (including enforcement). Management plan needs to be realistic.
• Important that we have baseline information of the chemical composition and make-up of the waters from the shoreline as well as outer boundaries of the sanctuary (for measurements like lead, mercury, CO2, bacteria and other substances that have harmed wildlife elsewhere). Need comparison for down the road. Also can see if there are strong linkages between activities outside sanctuary and inside sanctuary, including state of the sanctuary.
• Preventing a moving baseline is important.
• Enforcement outside the sanctuary would affect nets/drifting into the sanctuary nets shouldn't be dropped or need to be intercepted
• Limited access incorporate access via environmentally sound ecotourism research service projects. Pay a price to visit paradise
• Consider Kahoolawe model - working visits learning is incorporated into work cultural protocol.
• Access refined Kapu management or Konohiki kapus more specific. Consider kupuna advisory council for advice re kapus traditional and modern management expertise. Hereditary chief via royal order might serve as source. (Kaahumanu society, etc. for protocol guidance)
• Kapus needn't be permanent lifted based on status of marine environment relative to baseline data
• Look for agreement between modern practices and traditional practices for maximum effectiveness and accessibility. Science and protocol/cultural considerations in accordance
• There should be consistent applications of rules/management practices no exceptions/favoritism.
• Limited access should be based on helpful/restorative/education efforts volunteer service trips to count birds, etc. Pay for privilege to visit area this could be an effective advocacy/education tool.
• Determine types and degree of impact that's acceptable. Before access occurs.
• Will to make enforcement occur is lacking
• Ecotourism rich peoples play grounds
• Important that an advisory committee defines ecotourism and is looking at the big picture all ramification s of ecotourism Need to take measures to consider protocol that would be beneficial.
• Want access to youth of Hi through educational programs so they can experience pristine waters so they can envision and dream how waters of MHI/s can be. Youth are the ones to help restore and protect our islands
• Also want access for kupuna and hospice people. In last 50 yrs, so much has changed. For some, experiencing the place will allow them to die with peace, as well as inspire them to share their manas w/ other today. They hold the knowledge and stories because they don't feel there are others to pass it on to.
• There's migrational connection between NWHIs, Mauna Kea, and Aotearoa. The shrines are called marae and similar shrines exist on Mauna Keaand Aotearoa. Rainbow bridge between these places was sung into existence to allow passage between them.
• Concerned about funding available for enforcement. Its all about $$$ - need to create an infrastructure to ensure adequate funding/ resources to make it work.
• Should develop community groups to be involved in management of sanctuary. This is the difference between "taking kuleana" and "malama" and pointing fingers. These are resources we belong to.
• Could develop a friends of a sanctuary nonprofit so $$ can be given to others beside fed. Government.
• If open to access, should be in the form of service learning
• Aside from friends-type programs, main concern is over whether or not government. Will have adequate resources to do their job.
• Needs to be a real, working partnership between state and fed government to understand and coordinate enforcement, management issues (including enforcement, funding) in order to work visible enforcement is critical. This is important for successful marine management
• Funding for enforcement = jobs for people and should be considered this way. At Great Barrier Reef, theses jobs are a premium. We have a lot of folks who need good jobs.
• Whom access is decided for the sanctuary, perhaps the first people who should visit should be judges, politicians, and lawyers. Their awareness needs to be increased.
• Also need international delegates from around the Pacific Rime to visit, including international education programs to increase support. Not just Hi's treasure, but the worlds too
• Hopeful that when this happens, strict regulations/restrictions will be in place like at Great Barrier Reef.
• Concern about lack of a coordinated effort for management. Sanctuary oversees agency goals to make sure they are moving towards care taking.
• Sanctuary board to provide oversight to ensure all agencies are moving in the right direction
• Maintain the pristine nature of the ecosystem only predator dominated ecosystem in the world
• Concerned about the Dept of Commerce managing this area if its goals are to promote sustainable uses
• Concern of commercial interest in this area both fishing and tourism will exploit the resources so they disappear
• Full NEPA EIS compliance with the sanctuary process and full analysis of the social impacts to the current fishing interests in the area
• Hawaiian fishing permits in the Mau zone let them become operational in a sustainable way
• Want full environmental impact statement on the fisheries occurring up there currently
• Tighten standards on the EIS for estimating stocks; EIS should err on the side of caution
• don't want the state to open the fisheries; work with the state to limit fishing; make the sanctuary off limits to fishing
• Do not want the sanctuary to get off to a false start and be compromised do not support fishing- current data analysis is not accurate in depicting declining stocks keep it pristine; (impacts are difficult to detect to species already often too late)
• Prevention of problems vs. correction or mitigation is needed this is our last benchmark in the Pacific
• This area is at the highest latitude for coral reef production not as productive needs careful management
• Want DOC and DOI to compare notes and management objectives to keep it pristine
• Blocking the entire area from all access is a great loss; some educational opportunities are need with protection (limited access)-way to see and understand it
• Protection and enforcement from international commercial fishing is needed to ensure no illegal fishing i.e. Taiwan and China
• There needs to be active enforcement with flights, etc to limit impacts
• Send high school kids with summer sessions; nothing to compare with this experience with access to learn about the area
• Everyone should be allowed to experience the area but on a limited basis with minimal impacts ---to be educated about the area
• Success in the marine sanctuary is dependent upon inclusion of state waters
• Concerned about tourism in these islands in large numbers i.e. cruise ships, hotels, etc on these islands
• Want the experience to be a minimal impact not French food
• Collecting fish for aquariums and coral harvest should not be allowed
• Concerned about ensuring that precious coral harvesting not be allowed; need enforcement
• Keep large vessels commercial away to ensure that these are not any shipwrecks
• Research that is carefully monitored and limited should be allowed
• Conduct a study on quantity of all vessels using the area
• Commercial ventures should be kept at a minimum to reduce side effects such as fishing nets or plastics, sewage, that impact the reefs
• Want to ensure that nets coming onto reefs are tracked
• Want the countries dumping nets to be held accountable
• Even though islands are rather isolated they can still affected by global effects i.e. coral disease, sea level rise, etc
• Want to see net removal continue
• Make sure the plan has a solid and doable enforcement plan make sure the enforcement agency is in sync with the goals of management
• Enforcement is key for dealing with all intrusive/exploitative impacts; however minimizing the need for enforcement by making the area easy to manage; minimizing cost of enforcement is critical
• Enforcement is virtually unfeasible if there is a patchwork of fish and no fishing zones
• Should not automatically ban fishing out of hand unless we have done a thorough assessment of all impacts social, biological, etc.
• By shutting down some of the fishing you may increase impacts from other biological resources
• Need to assess equilibrium system; need to make decisions based on science
• Base decisions on science, compassion, and equity
• Need to balance needs of man and nature
• Success of the program hinges on ensuring that the general public interested about this area - grass roots effort critical
• Want to see education centers on each island in the main islands
• Vast area enforcement will be difficult want the penalties to be strict enough to count and make a difference dissuade illegal activities
• Concerned that a sanctuary, as another layer of bureaucracy, may not need additional protection to an once already protected
• State needs to be a partner in the sanctuary process, want state waters included
• Concerned that we will have to get the governor (newly elected) involved all over again; need to make this a campaign issue
• Provisions in executive order and ROP for cultural access need to be done in a sustainable way, not forward one Hawaiian group over another
  

For more information contact the Reserve office at:

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve
Sean Corson, Sanctuary Designation Coordinator
6700 Kalanianaole Hwy, #215
Honolulu, HI 96825
(808)397-2668
sean.corson@noaa.gov