Sanctuary Designation - Hilo Comments

Scoping Meeting Comments
He‘eia Kea State Park, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i
Wednesday, April 10, 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

• Midway needs to remain open to the public. Can the Sanctuary help?
• Hawaiian artifacts, concerns about security of artifacts
• Overfishing, pollution, overharvesting, land issues that could devastate the place. Wants to maintain and conserve area.
• Concern about historic remnants of uniformed services - need clean-up.
• What uses may be allowed in a National Marine Sanctuary?
• Better cooperation of all agencies operating in NWHI.
• Concern that marine debris be cleaned up!
• Worry about international fishing fleets contributing to marine debris problem. National Marine Sanctuary status could yield nation -to-nation dialog.
• Hi-tech fishery may yield by catch that decimates fishery
• Other states like Florida have already seen people damage. Ecotourism in NWHI needs strong regulations.
• Concerned that NWHI will be spoiled by people. Experienced SCUBA diver wants no human access except Hawaiians. Protect strongly by military means.
• Federal government may have money, but state partners may not in current status. Supports NMS for reasons of federal resources available to state.
• Seafood broker - sells only sustainable fishery products caught by hook-and-line. Wants the NWHI to be "net-free." Hook-and-line is sustainable! Free floating nets are killing corals and other animals. Also, stop pollution. But foreign nets are a bad problem. Fish sustainably, like Hawaiians.
• Emphasize international partnerships in sanctuary protection. Also emphasize enforcement.
• Feels that public should be sensitively allowed into a NMS. UH researcher comments, doesn't want to be a hypocrite.
• Access with strict regulations.
• Lobster fishery may have decimated the lobster population - concerned about impacts on seals. Wants ban on lobster fishing in NWHI, it's had its chance.
• Wants NWHI completely protected - even with lots of restrictions, people will have impacts - even research. Only people with management responsibilities should go on land - no tourism. If entry is for other than resource management or enforcement, stay out! [This comment echoed by another person]
• Educator wants to use NWHI as a model for how to restore MHI resources/habitats/fisheries. NWHI can help to teach about sustainability over the planet. So, don't go there, but learn from there.
• Many children have not had the opportunity to see the special underwater places. Sanctuary needs to be protected for children, and to teach responsibility.
• Concern about lack of resources to deal with shipwrecks.
• Population pressures may lead to demand for future uses in the NWHI. Look ahead, act now.
• Experience diver believes most people who dive will eventually destroy dive sites, but not intentionally. Wants no diving in the NWHI to protect the ecosystem. Willing not to dive to save the place.
• Diver can live with places that may already have permanent impacts. But do not damage uncompromised areas. Use Midway only and strongly control.
• What will happen if US enters into international trade agreements (WTO) Do not have trade agreements that will impact NWHI. Do not let dollar rule.
• How can we best manage the area for future generations.
• Observation and lesson: teacher showed movie of fishes that no longer exist because of impacts of man. Do not let this happen in NWHI, and use NWHI stocks to help replenish MHI stocks. Sustain fishery in NHWI for future using hooks, and only Hawaiian-style throw nets.
• Maintain close restrictions on people on Midway - for other islands. No people on land except for official business.
• Military impacts - can we limit them? Sonar, pollutants.
• Make sure the control stays in Hawaii . Important for Hawaiians to be involved. Sustainable hook-and-line fishery. Monitoring hook-and-line.
• Interaction with sovereign Hawaiian Nation in future.
• Lets redevelop own areas, both land and fishing areas. Use sanctuary as dream. How we want to see our main islands to look like again.
• Hate to see a great place to fish locked away from, especially from kids; can do no better than to have a kid grow up fishing; better to make rules easier than harder, and tighten up later if necessary; if we lock the area away, what can we do with it?; want sustainable fishing.
• Sanctuary may create lack of fisheries info; enforcement may be inadequate. NWHI are most highly regulated fisheries in state.
• Concern about target fisheries and flawed past management; doubts we can control resources; gatherers should be responsible for their gathering; past crashes should not be repeated; you shouldn't take it if it cant be taken; all areas in Hawaii chain are related
• Marine debris and enforcement will be a big problem; life there is fragile and the islands are so remote.
• Fisheries in Hawaii have always been regulated; no regulation equals no preservation, so regulation is main issue; some fishing always ends in no fish equals fate of all worlds fisheries
• Wants NO TAKE area for entire sanctuary
• Resources of NWHI are adequately protected, and vast amounts of money will be needlessly spent, keeping these funds from other more important fisheries issues in MHI (like Kaneohe Bay )
• Sanctuary will improve education about marine debris, historic/cultural importance, fishing interests as well as preservation.
• If there's any take for any reason (including research), it should be done in a sustainable manner, especially because of impacts on MHI; in short lifetime, has seen incredible depletion in our marine resources; concerned that current harvest in NWHI is not sustainable.
• Concerned about interactions between federal endangered and threatened species (especially Hawaiian monk seals) and humans in terms of both fisheries and tourists.
• Very important that sanctuary is in Hawaii and that there are adequate provisions for native culture and rights - in terms of preservation and education.
• Mobilize local community in preservation of resources; focus educational infrastructure on: (1)direct participation (clean-up groups, data collection) and (2) indirect participation (passive support and appreciation)
• We don't have adequate reach for protection around islands; foreign fishers are a problem so need radius of protection/enforcement around every island, including NWHI; too late in MHI - dead already; supports restoration; NWHI are being depleted so stocks not coming here; take a lesson from mistakes in MHI.
• Wants to make sure that lasting protection does not equal permanent closure; our fleet is well-managed and fisherman would be put out of business if overfishing the resource; fishing should play a part in whatever happens - Hawaii people should be allowed up there.
• If we cant take care of MHI fisheries, how will we take care of remote NWHI? Sanctuary should invite international cooperation in protecting reefs (regarding marine debris beyond sanctuary boundaries; worried about ecotourism impacts on birds, turtles, Hawaiian monk seals; concerned about native bottomfishers rights.
• Fishermen have crashed stocks in NWHI despite economics (mullet, lobster); not taking responsibility; lack of enforcement is no reason for no enforcement; HI fisheries were always regulated before (e.g. aha councils).
• Concerned that sanctuary will close off ecotourism; also worried that cruise ships will come in - keep em out.
• Kaneohe Bay fishery crashed for lack of state regulations; fishing is a privilege, not a right.
• Well-managed sanctuary will provide opportunity for protection, management and education.
• Use Hawaii culture as model for sanctuary management; use local people and resources
• Ensure adequate money for adequate management
• Management should be conducted in the sense of kuleana - reciprocal set of privileges and responsibilities; kuleana was before U.S. in past and will continue in the future.
• How will sanctuary affect commercial fishing? Reef fishing? Sailboat access? Want access for public diving, surfing, camping. These are benefits of sanctuary, right?
• Provide info on research that will be done, how to get access, what's the end product?
• Consider providing access for education
• Provide opportunities for direct, hands-on learning
• Cool to have field trip access
• Look for win-win approach - balance resource use/future access
• Look at sanctuary (NWHI) as example, learning tool for management of others areas in MHI and apply lessons learned here to manage NWHI
• Access should be for individuals, cultural groups - all cultures/artifacts. Rights should not just be for indigenous. Equal weight for cultural, religious observations or fishing.
• Make research for how this affects commercial fisherman. What are consequences of fishing pressures shifting away from area? Jobs, income, economy. Economic and other impacts.
• Make sure feasibility, other research takes economic impact into account
• Do fishing restrictions that apply to domestic apply to foreign fishers as well?
• Equal access may not mean just access - impacts on each group are relative; key stakeholders should be able to comment, continue inclusive dialogue. Consider stakeholder involvement in management/governance of area.
• Volunteer watch group/advisory group should be considered.
• Consider practice of foreign countries training to fish here.
• Make sure monk seal habitat is protected.
• Make sure NWHI not used for military /national security.
• Minimize budget reductions for this area.
• How will people (managers of area) be held accountable? How is public kept aware of this - responsibilities, goals, objectives.
• What exactly are these goals? How will they be measured/enforced.
• How much is enforcement going to cost? Who's paying for it?
• Local employment opportunities - what are they?
• Who has control over management?
• Info process should be shared with public.
• How will designated sanctuary affect/conflict with other sanctuaries?
• Need good, education program on rules/regulations and how they will change.
• May need to make jurisdictional areas clear. Should be one boss.
• Have enforcement capacity always onsite - based at Midway; let civilians come up for volunteer work; combine management/education/volunteers to make best use of resources (staff, money) there.
• Be open to commercial service groups as well (ex. elder hostels).
• All groups - descendents of those who died/served at Midway for example.
• Visitation should be within reason, have rationale, not 700 people at one time.
• Permit system like Haleakala cabins, Haena
• Or [permit system like] Colorado River from Marble Canyon
• Consider user education for certain access - appropriate for type of access
• Start education early: interactive websites, chats, distance learning w/ onsite environmental; multi-generational opportunities.
• Video/web cams to observe, gather info about area.
• Make sure sanctuary gets enough money, support. don't rely solely on volunteers.
• Explore new, traditional and experimental management processes
• Give priority to historical, cultural, scientific, etc.
• Know/determine/communicate/current conditions of reefs and other important indicators; seems to be doing well by itself/current regulations.
• Develop strategies/management/advocacy plans for nearby areas outside of sanctuary - fish swim out, migration of animals, pollutants. How to manage external pressures on management?
• Need to have controlled areas (secret) for ongoing monitoring as indicator of what effects different activities are having relative to baseline info; identify indicators that would serve as early warning.
• Make sure sanctuary doesn't create excuses to negatively impact other places like allowing overfishing in other areas.
• Create opportunities for local employment - develop local experts for research , management of area , so don't need to bring in outside people from mainland U.S.
• don't know what you are allowed to do now. Can I take my boat there? How do we find the information?
• Last coral reef wilderness - remain healthy by understanding limits of use?
• Regulatory mechanism - how will it change?
• Balance between ecosystem and fishing, tour operators, etc.
• When will plan be done and how will it be enforced?
• Public access not limited, not have it become a private experiment for scientists.
• Management area O-3 miles incorporated into NWHI - federal government has money.
• Commercial fisherman concerned about how a sanctuary will effect fishing in main islands.
• After designation of sanctuary up north may be expanded down here
• With only 17 fishers - not lots of impact. Why do they need more closures?
• Long term protection of the resources as a primary goal of management.
• Process should build on existing process and Executive Order
• Wespac is an inappropriate management agency in the NWHI.
• Enforcement is crucial.
• Gift to future generations - 5 generations from now at least.
• A place where the animals and resources are free from harassment, without direct influence of people.
• Boundaries should be unambiguous.
• Sanctuary may allow more focus/awareness thereby increasing use especially ecotourism in the inside of reefs.
• Balance between conservation, maintenance, and use.
• An aggressive education program on the marine ecosystem, how one part can be affected by activities in another.
• Body of water all connected - pollution from elsewhere still impacts the reefs.
• Need to look beyond the boundaries to ensure activities outside are not affecting resources inside.
• Pollution is bigger than sanctuary, need to look at international efforts for this
• More funding to stop pollution/marine debris at the source.
• Tourism - large cruise ship - all their impacts.
• Increased research in general could have an impact - need clear guidelines on this type of activity.
• Permitting process for all activities.
• Already regulations in place - where does sanctuary add value? More education about where land interfaces with water
• More education about the permits and rules that already exist - lots of them
• We are worried that sanctuary means closing off area to everyone.
• What does creating a sanctuary mean?
• Worried about excluding one group over another.
• Clear definition of what's allowed for equity among groups - don't exclude fisherman (for example) and allow tourism use.
• What is the difference between Reserve vs. Sanctuary? What are the benefits?
• Sanctuary should act to preserve coral reefs from alien algae.
• Is this leading towards duplication of effort? Who has the rights? Federal government, state in state waters?
• Bottomfish live in certain areas - how do the larvae move? Recruitment between the NWHI and MHI?
• Need research on genetic and larval transport to main islands from NWHI!
• Research about how larvae congregate and move in open ocean - these areas need protection.
• Certain species are a lot more sensitive to our impacts - certain time of year or life stages.
• Natural life histories need to be considered in management.
• Set up a NWHI hatchery for bottomfish larvae.
• Still pristine; get rid of nets, etc. don't lose ground, err on side of safety. Use best info from other parts of world - don't use NWHI as test case.
• Natural effects and global warming already will impact - anticipate other trends.
• Continue fishing, but quotas, stocks must remain. Fishing OK but don't deplete.
• In 10 years wants to see what she sees now. Through mimimized impact and money for enforcement. Need creativity. Audio enforcement.
• Model for how to treat an environment with respect.
• Predator dominated ecosystem should be throughout area. Other activities, besides fishing, need to be regulated. Regulations before use. Tourism, research.
• Love it from a distance should be theme.
• So many agencies involved in process - confusing for average person. Sources of info suspect - don't know how valid, trustworthy, or complete.
• The NWHI should remain a sanctuary as they are now. The ecosystem should be preserved, people should not overfish, and tours should be guided. There should be no-take areas; Wildlife should have priority; the area should not be overused or overfished; it should be natural; the NWHI should be used as an educational tool.
• There should be restrictions so that more species are not lost.
• The NWHI should be used as an example of a place that has not been destroyed; a model for Hawaii ; a workshop for students. Sanctuary could be an educational tool.
• Science should be permitted but regulated. There should be a connection between science and the public, education and communication are essential elements of this. There should be requirements and restrictions for scientists also.
• Need leaders (whos going and doing what?) to provide effective management.
• Regulations need to be in place so no one overtakes - restrictions. Be stingy with what is allowed.
• Access should be coordinated between agencies. Someone from the sanctuary needs to be responsible for developing a research plan. Mechanism for research coordination is essential.
• Should not be fishing in NWHI, students should have as much access as scientists. Scientists should be regulated. Collection should be prevented, also killing, even in the name of science. Overuse of resources by the scientists should not occur.
• Efficient science, including good reporting of the science is important.
• NWHI should be used as a model of what used to be and what should be. Ecology should be a priority - preserve an intact ecosystem.
• NWHI is so far away that resources need to be put in place so the experience can be brought to everyone (e.g. take them there virtually).
• If public is not educated, then they will not care about the NWHI. Education is essential.
• Education should show healthy ecosystem (schools of fish are small in MHI, large in NWHI).
• Preservation should be number one. Limits should be on everything (science, fishing, tourism). Preservation is not possible without limitations. Only limited exploitation should happen, therefore regulations are necessary.
• People need to be educated about coral reefs, what's happening to them, fragility, etc. Educate briefly and intelligently so that we can pass this on to the next generation. This is a trust for perpetuity.
• Focus should be why its important, public should know justification.
• People need to be educated because they don't know.
• Historical and cultural resources are equally important. Excessive regulations should not be in place - not good politics. Don't make it look like an elite access only area.
• Last pristine coral reef in the world, and it should be maintained. There is nothing else like it in the world.
• Cultural sites of Nihoa and Necker are important to cultures origins, may have been stopover point. They are important resources to Hawaiians - contain history. Info may rewrite history - very significant.
• There needs to be a balance between education and research and preservation. Some preservation will be sacrificed for education and research.
• Archaeology should be done. Students of all ages should be involved.
• D.O.E. is important partner and should be involved, also the University of Hawaii .
• Definition of partners needs to be clarified.
• All levels of education should have a role (nationwide).
• There should not be sportfishing. At least with subsistence fishing, the catch is eaten.
• Catch and release is brutal and changes the ecology.
• User fees should be considered.
• Land should be included in the sanctuary.
• Fishing boundaries should be designated.
• SCUBA diving is an example of low-impact recreation.
• Recreational and commercial fishing is a concern. Damage to coral is a concern. NWHI sanctuary should include Kaneohe Bay .
• The important decision is what to do about commercial fishing - is there a level that is sustainable and will preserve the ecosystem?
• Number of people visiting needs to be monitored. We need to understand long-term impacts of human use.
• Sanctuary boundaries must be based on depth, not land boundaries. State jurisdiction within sanctuary makes no sense. Needs to be managed as one. 200 mile limit may be best.
• Commercial operators in the NWHI should not participate in the regulation process.
• Permanent commercial fishermen should be more regulated.
• Regulations are great - but toothless without enforcement.
• Strongly feel that fisherman need to be part of management process. It is their livelihood. Important industry.
• Very special place - proper management essential. Limit extraction.
• Enforcement is key - aerial enforcement. More detailed plan for enforcement strategy in remote islands.
• [Regulations preventing] poaching, extraction need to be enforced.
• Untrained researchers and management. Business as usual approach to management.
• Co-managing agencies share info process, streamline permitting, coordinate enforcement.
• Strictest rule that takes precedence.
• Funding should be adequate, perpetual.
• All resources should be protected; however, Native Hawaiian traditional rights should be respected.
• Funding for enforcement to ensure cross-program specialty and jurisdiction. Coordination of funding across agencies.
• Education about NWHI should be implemented at early educational stage (K, 1, 2, 3).
• Increased tourism to NWHI will be damaging to area.
• Increase availability of information and education so public can fully participate in and understand process.
• Explain uniqueness of area to public in clear and concise manner.
• Efforts should be made to simplify educational material.
• Need to centralize permitting process or bureaucratic nightmare will ensue.
• Streamline process for Native Hawaiian rights and access.
• Facilitate discussion about Native Hawaiian rights and access.
• Spell out particular access and rights to avoid misinterpretation and red tape.
• Place limits and guidelines to tourism activity.
• VMP - Vessel Management Plan - to address use issues.
• Minimize impact to environment (place limits), avoid damage to reefs.
• Concerned about education, like to see educational programs encouraged.
• There need to be educational opportunities to care about the place.
• Maximize positive impacts/minimize negative impacts through regulations of access.
• Encourage stewardship through education and public support of sanctuary.
• Based on experience of Kaneohe Bay , regulations need to be enforceable. Public users and attorneys need to be part of rule-making process.
• Have more definable areas of use for public compliance.
• Money/funding - take advantage of available technology - maximize technology uses for research, enforcement.
• Breakdown between research and policymaking gets lost in scientific journals.
• More people should know about NWHI educational stuff. Go out and educate. Film was a good way.
• Agencies need to be streamlined because they are confusing and it is necessary.
• State waters need to be a part of the sanctuary or else the sanctuary won't be effective.
• Question asked: What is the value-added for the reserve to become a National Marine Sanctuary? Will we be better off then we are today?
• It is appropriate that researchers should follow the same regulations.
• Conduct responsible research and develop clear plan that provides research opportunities that will benefit the sanctuary.
• Look at case studies of other reserves around the world and learn the successes, failures, etc. from them.
• Utilize technology (from Department of Defense) for enforcement, research, and resource management
• There is disconnect between research and policy.
• Researchers responsibility needs to go to conservation/research agencies that are funding the research.
• Education materials should be dispersed among the people in the community for their use.

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