Sanctuary Designation - Hilo Comments

Scoping Meeting Comments
Radisson Kaua‘i Beach Resort, Lihu‘e, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i
Tuesday, April 16, 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
(DLNR) State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources

• Need a firm compliance with the borders that are set.
• Concern about what we set aside for the long term. Want to see a Reserve established that is healthy for 7 generations, even 100 generations. Worried about how our descendants will judge us.
• Voluntary compliance doesn't work. (example Texas air quality control).
• Need strict criteria/rules for boaters that use the area. Use technology (GPS etc).
• Property should be confiscated if rules are broken intentionally.
• Would like to see a memoranda of understanding developed with all agencies involved that will have protocol and process about who will take the lead on enforcement.
• Need to achieve consistency for geographic areas that each agency has jurisdiction over.
• Need to have state/federal jurisdictions/consistent standards unified.
• Would like to see that the whole ecosystem is part of boundaries of the sanctuary. Large enough, inclusive to be effective.
• Concern over international impacts.
• Need to control nets etc coming into the sanctuary (ex. Water pollution, stuff from air, oil pollution).
• Worried about oil spills by foreign vessels. Need to have international interface with those responsible to respond. Have dialogue to create these policies.
• Same as above for national, private, military and any vessels.
• Concern that there are numerous, powerful, political forces that could dampen integrity for the creation of a sanctuary.
• Need everyone on board in order for a sanctuary to work.
• Ocean policy is so controlled by politics and economics, so if we don't have support through education of fishermen and everyone, these efforts will fall prey to these forces.
• People need to understand that the issue isn't as simple as sanctuary V.S. fishing. The region contains a lot of biodiversity not found anywhere else. Preserving biodiversity is complex.
• People need to be able to enjoy this area by videos, research opportunities, community involvement not only for preservation of the area but for appreciation and enjoyment of what is preserved.
• Would like to see people be allowed to go up to the area.
• There may need to be people, carefully controlled human access for certain purposes, but I'm happy to have places with no people.
• Concerned about eco-tourism and unintended hazards or damage caused by people with access
• Concerned that the native Hawaiian gathering rights are going to be honored in the sanctuary.
• Ecotourism in the area is not appropriate unless heavily regulated.
• Support filming and media in area as long as enforcement is in place.
• Support education and stewardship based on reciprocity (ex. .Earthwatch)
• Appropriate access model is Kahoolawe (educated before you enter).
• Need extreme restrictions for film and media people because of the damage that they can cause.
• Important to honor cultural gathering rights but wouldn't want Hawaiian access rights to supersede sound scientific management principles.
• Konohiki fishing rights and the kapu was set up, no chance for species being lost because the punishment was death.
• Pure scientific management never stands alone, it always falls to politics and economics and many species have suffered because of it (ex. CO2 dumping is a planned experiment, highly political, lots of money involved. )
• Access for everyone should be the most highly regulated in the US .
• CO2 dumping will be a problem for the sanctuary if they follow through with large scale dumping.
• Important that the International dumping convention be upheld/preserved and no exceptions be made, because of the effects on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands .
• Prevention of invasive species should be developed from the beginning so the issue of invasives doesn't overwhelm the area.
• Don't want cruise ships in the area because of potential to carry invasives (plus other things).
• Concerned that trade laws not be allowed to interfere with sound management (Ex. Using management money to compensate for industry that loses money).
• Want to see air traffic restrictions implemented because of noise, dumping waste potential accidents, etc. Who knows what kind of aircraft will exist in the future.
• All defined restrictions should be applied to the military.
• No special dispensation for military.
• Concerned about the issue of whose science? Parties need to find a way to agree on science where there are conflicts.
• If science is for profit, it needs to be highly scrutinized.
• If science is for science then we can be a little more forgiving.
• Fishing interests seem to be absent in this small group, I'm worried that without involvement from everyone we wont get buy in.
• As long as there is a permit process that is limited, then there is not a concern about commercial fishing.
• In case of a natural event (storm) want to make sure the right protocol takes place in order to care for Kupuna (iwi) that are there.
• Other jurisdiction in area should be included in the sanctuary because they are significant areas, especially state waters.
• Need to include the whole ecosystem in including the near shore areas and the waters in between.
• Any waters each land mass should be included in the sanctuary and be preserved, should have corridor integrity.
• Sanctuary can bring education and research opportunities. It will also enhance marine life resources outside/around the sanctuary including commercial, recreational, sport, and subsistence fishing.
• Sanctuaries are one method of preserving the resources of the sea.
• Concern of how sanctuary will be funded. Management, enforcement, research cost money.
• Funding and enforcement of sanctuary should be subject to 4-year political cycles.
• A sanctuary could bring jobs to Hawaii (e.g. water cops).
• Concerned that the voice of the general public wont be listened to when concentrated economic interests come in the back door.
• Coral reef ecosystems take centuries to come back and it will take generations to recover from impacts so we need to be careful.
• Use only sailing vessels to bring students to the NHWI less impact than motorized vessels.
• Coast Guard should be utilized for monitoring and protection of NWHI.
• Why isn't the HIHWNMS incorporated into the NWHINMS? Why not a single marine sanctuary that incorporates all Hawaiian Islands ? Would like to see this to conserve funds, with different areas having different rules.
• Priority should be given to the Kanaka (Native Hawaiian) people for access to fish; it is important to their DNA/makeup.
• Kanaka people (Native Hawaiian) need training in fishing technologies to take advantage of the resources in the NWHI. The Kanaka people must be given prioriy because it is the law, as stated in the 1909 Executive Order and in the 2000 E.O.
• Would like to see all for-profit activities excluded from the NWHI. Need consumer/producer cooperatives.
• No military activities should be allowed in the NWHI.
• No dumping of hazardous wastes, Carbon Dioxide, or any other kind of dumping should be allowed in the NWHI.
• No mining activities should be allowed in the NWHI, like mining for Manganese nodules or coral parts.
• If fishing is allowed as a commercial venture in the NWHI, then the NWHI will begin to look like MHI fish populations.
• Only allow hand-line fishing in the NWHI low impact.
• Only sailboats should be allowed in the NWHI as opposed to motorized vessels. Only allow low impact vessels.
• National marine sanctuary designations sound really nice but concerned that Federal rules will exclude Native Hawaiian access and freedom of Kanaka people to be included in the Sanctuary Designation process.Need to recognize that Native Hawaiians have jurisdictional rights to the NWHI.
• Malama the environment; but must first establish what is there. Need baseline data and more complete research from ocean based vessels.
• Concern about pollution (opala) from foreign vessels. Need international and Federal cooperation to limit this pollution.
• Need to tell people about the resource in order to protect it but concerned about increasing problems by telling people about the area like Hawaiian burial sites want to protect and educate but not tell people where they are.
• What are the advantages of creating a NMS over a Reserve? Would like to see the money put into Sanctuary Designation process put instead into managing the area.
• Need more education to see value of protecting the NWHI. From a very young age need to start teaching this. School trips bring schoolchildren there to see it, with limitations to prevent damage.
• Concern that the Sanctuary will be developed on skewed information and not actual facts. Need to draw information from Kupuna, fishermen, and research.
• There is a lack of understanding of what the NWHI represents, how can we explain the value of protecting this area to future generations if we ourselves do not fully understand it?
• Concepts of education and collaboration should be made up front! Federal Government usually gives good lip service but no follow through or commitment, keep process open.
• Continue to put money into public service education, like the ads run for Sanctuary Designation. Would like to see an ongoing effort and outreach activities.
• Need to protect the soil, the ecosystem, the environment because they are spawning grounds for future generations of fish. Cannot just protect specific species, need to protect habitat.
• This is the last pristine coral reef ecosystem in the U.S. / World and it must be totally protected.
• Must have entry permits for all accesses (fishing, research, etc. ) Cannot be an open system.
• Native Hawaiians must have access to the NWHI for cultural, religious and subsistence fisheries.
• Concern over fishing and ecotourism. Limit ecotourism to viewing only or place caps on the number of visitors (like 20 people/day). Need to make these rules permanent. Need guidelines for ecotourism.
• How do we regulate marine debris from Japanese fishing vessels? Would like to see mechanisms to regulate this.
• Need prohibitions against any taking of wildlife, including fishing or other ocean or land creatures.
• Use lessons learned from NWHI to apply to MHI. Area could recover.
• Protection needs to tie together with the MHI.
• Economics U.S. should handle some issues; but international community should also, protection is a global issue.
• With the protection of the marine environment comes protection of the terrestrial environment.
• Cannot just protect the NWHI, problems in MHI go to NWHI, need to address bigger picture.
• Concern over changes in administration in Washington want consistency no changes, cannot veto protections.
• Sanctuary needs to include State waters or cannot regulate.
• Include future generations. Educate Hawaiian children, its their culture. They should be involved. The NWHI is like a child in a cradle.
• Understand Geology if you don't know what is up there (in the NWHI) you cannot know how to manage it.
• Kupunas get information from them.
• Need strong enforcement and penalties for regulations that are developed.
• No new fisheries should be created but recognize that the ohana (family) that has been fishing up there, and allow them to continue in a reasonable fashion.
• General concern commercial exploitation of all types. Should not sacrifice environment for economic reasons. If our economy becomes bad we might let things happen to bring in funds. Economy sometimes distorts protections. Commercial activities need to be strictly regulated, i.e. concession enterprises and ecotourism.
• Feds only want to collaborate up front, then no more. Always go to guise of defense.
• Can the area support fishing? Need to understand it first. Has to be very open process, collaboration needs to be more than just lip service.
• Put money into informing the community about the area and management.
• Clean up marine debris, should be a big priority.
• Concerned that Sanctuary Designation process will slow down protection efforts.
• If the Reserve is exclusive to protect it than must ensure access to Native Hawaiians fishing rights.
• Avoid misuse through education.
• Need reverence and respect.
• Sanctuary might be victim of its own success by attracting people to it and therefore increase impact.
• Need more research and rely on knowledge of people who have been up there Kupuna, fishermen.
• There is no economic reason to fish on coral reef should not be permitted.
• Midway has ecotourism (100 people / week) and one day I witnessed 450 Japanese tourists get off of a boat and trample all over the reef.
• Need protection of whole environment. All my life I have heard that the area is a nursery. Need to look at all levels of protection.
• Strengthen protection, take it beyond Executive Order. Work on Federal level.
• Concern over DLNRs ability to manage the area.
• Need to work on a global scale, federal scale.
• Need to have Native Hawaiian access to sacred sites whole area is sacred.
• Fishermen bring back 30 tons of fish at a crack. How can this harvest level be maintained?
• If fishing is not sustainable then stop it. Fund Coast Guard to enforce it.
• Only fishing from sailboat should be allowed up there. Single line fishing catch just for tonight.
• Vessels that go up to NWHI should use Biodiesel fuel, better for coral reefs. Require ecologically sound fuel for vessels entering the area.
• Roosevelt 1909 Executive Order and others recognize Native Hawaiian access.
• Everyone wants a piece of the pie. Who has first say? Worried more Federal control would not include Native Hawaiians at front of business process. Be aware of Federal obligations to Hawaiian Nation.
• People should be empowered to manage. Hawaiian issue should not be in the way, should be part of the solution.
• International enforcement of marine debris and tourism is an issue.
• Need consumer/producer cooperatives in NWHI.
• No lobster fishing should be allowed in the NWHI.
• No coral harvesting should be allowed in the NWHI.
• No ecotourism should be allowed in the NWHI.
• No cruise ships should be allowed in the NWHI because of impacts from sewage, grounding potential, exhaust, disturbing wildlife (bumping whales).
• No aquarium fishing should be allowed in the NWHI, the NWHI is a nursery they are babies.
• No dredging/construction should be allowed in the NWHI.
• No dumping of any kind should be allowed in the NWHI.
• No Carbon Dioxide dumping should be allowed in the NWHI.
• No mining of coral or Manganese should be allowed in the NWHI.
• If you start to allow ecotourism its downhill and ecosystems take centuries to recover.
• Education tours should be restricted to educational institutions. Those that are certified by the State or Feds as educational institutions, not commercial educational tours.
• If there are no Federal funds maybe should rely on our own funding from fisheries. Use this money to fund enforcement.
• If we have such high tech surveillance in Afghanistan why cannot we use this technology for enforcement in the NWHI.
• There are benefits of commercial fisheries when moneys from the fisheries are returned to help manage the area, like the Tonga example.
• Access/Fishing rights
• Unity in managing coral reef with State
• Interested in how sanctuary will affect plans to again make Midway a communications hub
• Track record of feds has been unproven 1) Overlapping jurisdiction is not good; 2) Need blanket agency (DLNR) to enforce (Enough officers, Creating more reefs as nesting ground for small fish); 3) Education of everyone should be done by Hawaiian Homelands, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Kamehameha schools; Alu like
• Get rid of all foreign vessels in Hawaii - no right, within 200 mile limit
• Mistrust of agencies outside of Hawaii
• Priority use for Native subsistence
• Hawaiians should be able to visit Nihoa, Necker, Kaula, Laysan, Lehua with oversight from DLNR and other agencies for cultural and historic purposes
• Don't trust Sierra Club b/c they have no Hawaiian blood, their focus should be on trees, outside agency
• Ancestors were self-sufficient 1) used and protected the land; 2) NWHI is unique, need Hawaiian values and practices
• No drag net, no illegal eye size of nets, no palo (chumming), no chemicals
• Take only what you eat
• Catch limit at current limit, just enforce better
• Kapu system for fish/lobster fishing certain times of the year
• Resolve jurisdictions /sanctuary partners 1) DLNR inconsistent, budget whims of government;
• Want to see consistent and coordinated mgmt, yet to see an agency to be able to do this
• Advisory council should monitor oversight agency budget, rules, enforcement
• No military activity should be within sanctuary guidelines
• Collection of data for baseline of all (marine) species as a basis for determining management
• Impacts to stocks take years to recover
• Concern there are persons/boats depleting the area even though its a long way out
• NWHI don't have enough nutrients to support its brood stock, they must travel to Main Hawaiian Islands : need to keep in mind when developing policy
• Limited access yet still needs protection
• Preserve-keep people off as much as possible
• Restock - species close to extinction, create new reefs with no or low impacts to existing regs
• Enforcement - only select groups allowed to visit
• Educate- what could be destroyed; know what impacts are by young people than less likely to damage ecosystem
• Midway lagoon water polluted
• NWHI possibly big fish eat small fish as evidenced in reverse pyramid (more big fish than small fish)
• Incentives by federal to state to fulfill full scope of sanctuary; there is disconnect in a management plan
• Concern about impact to Native Hawaiian rights and practices as normally happens with additional layer of bureaucracy. Hope that these rights are addressed in policy. Legislation that creates sanctuary include provision made of NWHI as part of a possible future sovereign entity; entity or whatever form it may take.
• No resorts, no tourism of any kind
• How can everyone be accommodated?
• Coral reef reserve will focus on long-term conservation 1) because coral reef ecosystem is in decline, vulnerable to human impacts; 2) because coral ecosystem are biological resources
• Concerned about state and federal government working harmoniously; uncertain about states involvement; state should be a partner
• Enforcement needs to find balance between resources and fishing
• Overfishing of certain species
• Mosaic of different rules and locations
• Need enforcement monitoring
• Simplify the rules
• Have observed a decrease in kinds of fish
• Reduced biodiversity is a concern
• Supports protection of area as a nursery for re-establishment of overfished areas
• Honoring subsistence fishing
• Long term protection honors Hawaiian values
• Use area for education and research for everybody seeking educational opportunities
• If Midway is setup for facilitating public use, use it to accommodate the public who want to learn
• Management must be sustainable
• The reason for the richness of species/environment is due to limited access
• The stocks are very easily suppressed
• There is an illusion on the number of large ulua and other fish b/c they may come from a larger area
• Nihoa and necker have really limited reef resources
• No place for commercial inshore activities
• NWHI fishery is not economically viable
• Reduce the number of permits, when someone quits the business, pull the permit
• Subsistence fishery should be controlled - limited to Hawaiians. Should be tightly controlled. Become stewards.
• Access, lack of enforcement is problematic
• Live food fishery is expanding worldwide and affecting collectibility of fish
• Native fishing rights can be learned/taught in NWHI
• Get people involved in the ecosystem
• Natural system is vulnerable
• Lessons that can be taught in NWHI: 1) Hokulea; 2) Lightest footprint; 3) Cultural connectivity; 4) Ecosystem w/low level of human impact
• Guided/control: someone needs to exert
• State is creating its policies in secret - things are worse than they seem
• State is not using best available scientific information, not considering implementation
• Could be the un-coral reef reserve because excluding State waters will leave areas in sanctuary that are too deep for corals
• Midway should be part of sanctuary
• Recreational catching is inappropriate, it affects fish behavior and damage to fish (catch and release has some problems)
• Feds should pressure state to include the nearshore waters in the sanctuary
• No one has looked at genetics of ulua.
• Need to monitor for radiation, cesium, cobalt, etc. this will affect everyone
• A community based organization could serve as a clearinghouse
• Public and taxpayers are the base. Agencies should respond to the community/council. (liked the interests represented on RAC)
• Commitment to the community is needed by management of the sanctuary.
• Get baseline data
• Broad collection of info, including oral history
• Is there any other government entity that has jurisdiction besides state or federal? Perhaps city and county parks and recreation
• Hope: that outcome is dynamic and represents the best of how things should be done (exemplary model to the world for the environment and the culture)
• There should be a systematic way of getting information to the public regarding sanctuary rules/practices i.e. activities that are happening in the NWHI
• Concern that additional resources be included into sanctuary
• Concerned that sanctuary should be user friendly
• Concerned that A.T.O.C. experiments are damaging to marine life and environment; should be stopped
• Create a volunteer task force that would make funding last longer; it would create a shared experience for more people
• Create a constituency that would help value the resources
• Concerned that if interests fade, so will funding
• Create access opportunities to enjoy and create beneficial sustainable resources
• Concerned that enforcement need to be created to preserve reefs and environment; need strong enforcement for chemical use/damage (oil spills)
• Enforcement guarantees preservation (leave collateral, penalties, imprisonment)
• Require vessel monitoring system
• Impose a mandatory insurance bond upon active fishing vessels in NWHI or any vessels in area
• Create a law that requires oil tankers to stay out of currents that come in contact with NWHI.
• Create a citizens advisory group to advise-sanctuary
• Communities become empowered to be a part of the process (rules, laws).
• Reserve advisory Council should write to Congress, be able to lobby.
• Use a sanctuary as a stock resource to replenish depleted fish stocks in the main Hawaiian Islands .
• Restrict all activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands . Create most restricted zone/area in the word. Have this area be used for research and preservation.
• If rules cant be enforced then don't let people up there.
• Introduce satellite and new technology to monitor for enforcement and environmental monitoring.
• Sanctuary needs to supersede any military control.
• Sanctuary should be a total nuclear free zone.
• Add Kauai to sanctuary, include whole island.
• Sanctuary headquarters should be stationed on Kauai , proximity to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands .
• Allow greater public education about process and participation.
• Concern that public input will be ignored.
• Have sanctuary extend all waters to include state and federal waters in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands . Create a seamless agency.
• Public education is essential for youth involvement, and to communicate with neighbors and Congress.
• Public education is essential to sanctuary designation.

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