Sanctuary Designation - Hilo Comments

Scoping Meeting Comments
Kona, Big Island, Hawai‘i
Thursday, April 18, 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
(WESPAC) Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council
(DLNR) State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural Resources

• Would like to see marine debris taken care of and stopped at the source. It's the most critical issue affecting the reefs.
• Concerned that they will open it up to fishing and cause crashes again (i.e. lobsters). Want to see protections remain strong. Over fishing.
• Need strong controls. Need to have some fishing. Careful because increased presence will help ensure controls. You will know whats going on and help watch out for violations/violators. No fishing regulation would be a mistake. Want to see regulated fishing. Sees the ocean as a resource that has to be managed
• Having fished up there, will know when foreign fishers are in the region. Foreign fishers have already depleted their own resources.
• Concerned about enforcement against foreign fishing boats
• State waters should be made part of the sanctuary. Wants environment well protected against anything that will threaten it.
• Status of reserve that it gets to the sanctuary status with full protection and conservation status, but public access for recreations and access as any National Park. Protection should only build on existing protections - in other words, the Executive Order should be the baseline.
• The land and sea interrelate so want to see federal waters, 3 miles of state waters (and land) all managed together. Dont want to see jurisdictional differences
• Dont want to see any of the protections diluted as in executive order
• Concerned about all access, like on land, dont want human access to harm. Want to see restrictions on access for everyone on land and sea.
• To maintain it and have maximum protection there should be no eco-tourism.
• Dont think that there should be perpetual protection. Areas should be opened periodically. Should be based on the kapu system (during breeding seasons of fish, fishing should be closed)
• The whole archipelago is part of ceded lands. Need to protect cultural and historic resources.
• Hawaiians knew how to take care of had symbiotic relationship between man and nature researchers should study now Hawaiians maintained integrity of area. This cultural knowledge still exists and should not be lost. Scientists have opportunity to apply this knowledge today. Hawaiian practitioners need access to preserve cultural practices and subsistence. I.e. kapu to prevent over fishing.
• Would like to see permanent research stations for study of marine environment (research and monitoring). Educational facility too, at Midway for students from various institutions.
• We always make requirements but arent able to enforce them. Need to endure that enforcement component is built in to keep a handle on all activities in the area. Want to see a successful plan in place before implementation, and then follow the plan. Including penalties.
• Concerned about coral harvesting. No coral harvest because its such a unique area
• If managed as an ecosystem, need monitoring (i.e. key indicator species) programs. The area is so vast, this is needed for proper management
• If there is eco-tourism, it needs to be regulated by permits and be limited to small vessels, no large ventures.
• Need to make sure that those who get access respect the area. Ancient culture had incredible respect, therefore didnt nee outside enforcement. If we think in these terms, well have a better plan. Looking at culture practices will give us a better clue on how to develop the respect needed for enforcement.
• Want to see anchoring system for research vessels so dont nip reef up with anchors. Permanent mooring system in place.
• Water quality needs to be maintained. Science needs to find ways to monitor debris and pollutants (no sun tan oil).
• Bottom line is to emphasize protection
• Because there are already buildings on some islands, they should be maintained for use by researchers, students, etc. Dont re-invent the wheel
• Need to have special congressional appropriation for CG to specifically enforce the area. Best way to enforce is aerially.
• Keep cruise ships out of the area because of pollution.
• WESPAC is doing good job monitoring the NWHI and should retain authority to do so.
• Concerned about WESPACs monitoring of the area due to blowing it with the lobster depletion (1996).
• Concerned that given the # of agencies involved in the process, it will be difficult to come to consensus. There are conflicting interests.
• No military applications
• Concerned about foreign fishing and use of area. They are of a different culture and thinking. Difficult to enforce.
• Concerned that not all vessels operating in the area have VMS boxes
• Concerned that only one NOAA agent is responsible for region.
• Concerned about manganese nodule mining in NWHI and doesnt want this to occur anywhere because it will disrupt the environment
• No military aspects i.e. no sonar testing, no Navy testing or demilitarization of the sanctuary basically, keep military out.
• No CO2 testing within or without the confines of the sanctuary.
• Sanctuary. Could be a nursery for wildlife: marine life, endangered life, to keep the species alive.
• Need more education before any input of suggestion can be given
• Fisheries management needs to be sustained so that its not over fished like lobster or any particular group
• Include current Humpback whale NMS in the NWHI. NMS wants to give marine mammals as much territory as possible.
• Have more public awareness/education about whats happening. To educate our future generations and ourselves. Want to see more publications, news articles, TV, more marketing, whatever it takes to get public awareness so that people will be able to make internal intelligent decisions about the sanctuary.
• Military inputs military and Navy should not be in charge of the sanctuary. Because they have already done a lot of damage to the environment
• We need military for enforcement to deal with foreign boats of incursions
• Cannot limit ourselves to local enforcement because area is too big. Any encroachment from any foreign country should not happen in the sanctuary.
• The bigger the area, the more there is to protect, concerned about the ability to protect this area. We should only designate an area that we will be able to protect
• Would like to go on site visits to see the area and what is looks like, to get the feeling of the area
• Concerned about interim time before region becomes a sanctuary. Worried about harvesting of black coral, lobster, and fish. Concerned that everything will decimated within the thru years
• Would like to see scholarships offered to students in the field of marine biology for visitation privilege, research, study, etc.
• Lobster fishing has shown not geared toward protection, primary objective of sanctuary. Needs to protect natural, wild nature of area. WESPAC has been bad record (lobster) for management
• Commercial exploitation of natural resources is concern
• Enforcement - how will it be executed? Penalties what will they be?
• CA, AK fisheries declined due to commercial fishing should have severe limitation on fishing to protect wildlife
• Penalties/enforcement must have follow through
• Coral reefs analogous to terrestrial forests.../ecosystems are similar concerned about opportunistic/alien species
• Full protection, as far out as possible. Nursery for our food nursery has to keep going
• No economic exploitation, no biologists, no people.
• Eco-tourism should be allowed. It is well managed currently. Should not be expanded upon greatly. Existing facilities can help determine capacity
• Dive boats/charters should be allowed but more studies are needed
• Eco-tourism should be through licenses and enforced with fines, similar to zoning
• Restrict travelers via lottery system in getting permits (similar to Japan)
• Preplanning should take into account current activities and monitor as activities progress in #. Use mooring buoys instead of anchors
• There should be a central agency overseeing all agency players. Organizational structure guidelines for departments to cooperate. They need to enforce. Federal government should present management plan.
• Look at other sanctuary. As a model, use their good ideas
• Key for public support is to allow limited low impact access, limit contact. Like live-aboard vessels.
• Need to protect the fish, see major areas as no take zones (lobsters), including state areas. Fish need to replenish themselves. Need no-fishing zones.
• Dozen zones limited access for public to fish and snorkel. The rest should remain closed to the public.
• No aquarium fishing; lobster, no new fishing, no mining, no coral harvesting, no cruise ship access, extremely limited eco-tourism. Big kapu areas throughout, even to eco-tourism.
• Might be better to restrict access to NWHI up front. Decide now many people the area can have as visitor first. Look at NPS, now they are limiting access. We need to be pro-active.
• Concern that like Galapagos; even restrictions on eco-tourism access may not be effectively controlled since the operator may find ways to get around the limitations.
• Look at FKNMS for guidance on how to allow tourism and eco-tourism. They are doing good jobs.
• Problem with eco-tourism is that if it is successful then more operators come in and do more damage. Might be observed and loved to death. I.e. Glacier NP
• Concern about how enforcement will happen. Enforcement of foreign fishers, moorings, access. Concern that enforcement will be zoned in such a way that differing agencies will not know who has jurisdiction.
• Consider live-in mangers or a few of the Leeward Islands for monitoring and enforcement. Maybe graduate students.
• Charge an entry fee for people or groups that want to go up there, and then use this revenue for enforcement of to clean up vessel groundings. Like mountaineering clean-ups in Nepal.
• Need some kind of public access since if they cannot see it, of if it is funded from their tax dollars, how can we justify protection? Concern about state waters and state management since the state may want to increase access.
• Zone fishing access. No-take zones, limited fishing zones, etc. It is a large area.
• Concern about fishery (bottom fish populations in NWHI. In 1983 had to go all the way to Gardiner Pinnacles to catch load of Opakapaka.
• May want to use over flights with camera to identify who is up there. Coast Guard. Like to see satellite monitoring.
• Would like to see public/private partners Nature Conservancies, Friends of the Earth, etc.
• Like to see no extractive producer at all out to 100 fathoms. Except for scientific purposes of for Native Hawaiian access and gathering frights (Native Hawaiians need to document historical usage in order to allow currently).
• Native Hawaiians should be monitored to only allow past practices to continue in NWHI
• Marine debris is a huge issue. Need clean-up (amazing amount of debris washing up)
• May want to approach Sierra Club for volunteers. Need constant effort and international cooperation. PADI divers and programs.
• No satellite tracking, dumping of nuclear waste. No military activity of any kind. Stop expansion of any more military action in the area.
• Would like to see WESPAC eliminated or minimized from NWHI management. Because they represent fishing interests
• No fishing, no military, no take now since in the future, we want the fish in the area protected for future generations. Atlantic already fished out. Will turn to other areas.
• Preserve the past for the future. Treat it like a National Park.
• NWHI has and will be fished out; this area is the last source of genetic make-up as well as supply. Keep it as a nursery to replenish MHI. Keep all fishing out of area.
• Red Sea example of diving need to be careful about using funds from eco-tourism for protection. Government may see this as a funding stream and decide to increase access to increase funding stream. Need to be careful. Take Egyptian government as example
• NWEHI needs a fee for access and licenses. Use $ to enforce the rules
• Mandate GPS or VMS systems for enforcement
• State of HI should stay out of the picture. HI has strictest rules but no enforcement. It will be the same at the sanctuary
• State waters must be included in the sanctuary because the state has a poor record of management of its resources
• Eco-tourism and research boats should allow one observer on each boat to monitor area and activities.
• Use tour boats as a logistic tool maybe to deliver food, or mail, etc. to research staff on the islands. Recreational access with logistic needs
• Due to commercial activities $ generated in area should go back into the upkeep of NWHI the sanctuary. Not to other sanctuaries.
• Do not give University of Hawaii any special privileges. They do not show any respect for the waters or land. NO research access. They have promoted things like CO2 dumping
• University of Hawaii no special privilege. Go thru state/fed government permit process since they may be tempted by private industry for personal gain.
• Need oversight committee to make sure university research is honestly derived. University of Hawaii professors often violate rules or misuse access privileges
• NMF or an oversight agency to intensively monitor wealth of fishes and turtles, for disease. Mechanism to ensure health of the reef.
• Need transect monitoring like what Bill Walsh and DLNR are doing in the West part of HI. Use this program as an example and establish in NWHI
• Monitoring should not impact the reef, limit # of people and monitor their activities. "Rules of engagement", process of guidelines for research and oversight.
• Need better coordination among agencies that are already doing management up there. Already monk seal protection.
• Need a full-scale data base; base-line survey that is thorough. Data already collected and gather where areas are lacking.
• Foreign vessels need to be made aware of sanctuary status so that they adhere to the rules imposed by the sanctuary. Status. International coordination is needed.
• Concern about availability of fly-over and Coast Guard enforcement schedule by people of foreign vessels that want to illegally enter the area. Is this schedule public knowledge? If so, then know when they can go and not get caught.
• Ensure foreign vessels arent taking coral from area. Could introduce alien species, bilging, etc. Need to enforce or it will destroy the areas.
• Why cant we use the same type of monitoring system for fisheries that is currently being used in the Aleutian chain?
• Lack funding or an inadequate budget could be a problem for enforcement
• State and feds do not get along well
• Enforcement plan needs to be very comprehensive. Need a good plan
• Need a complete plan to make sure that people want to be a part of it
• Make sure that the plan is ..Use it as an outreach tool
• Need to ensure there is inter-generational education to make sure that the whole community is involved/ educated
• Elimination over time of consumptive uses
• Science based analysis for determining a balance of some fishing if found OK
• Concerned about managing fishing by MSY. Quotas and/or rates be done conservatively instead (1/2 of MSY)
• Make sure that there is enough enforcement to eliminate international fishing poaching in these waters
• Fishing data currently questionable by each fisherman.
• Fishing in the NWHI's keep the fish caught here and sell them only in HI
• Concerned about waste from ships being dumped outside of sanctuary. And making its way inside the area. Also about wasted inside.
• Have every fishing boat have something on their boat to track their movement
• Total closure to all takes in the NWHI. Make it simple.
• Make sure all levels of enforcement know the rules and jurisdiction and how to enforce them.
• Large population of climax populations keeps these populations intact with larger apex predators. Even it there is fishing.
• Want to try to keep the populations of fish large and individual sizes large to try to replenish in MHIs
• Need to make sure University and/or all projects are carefully monitored and approved about impacts
• Any boat entering the sanctuary. Must have approval before entering. Entry by permit only.
• Include state waters in the sanctuary.
• Education component of the sanctuary. Plan very strong. Merge all agencies programs to educate fishermen, kids in schools, policy makers, people in malls to the need for this sanctuary. And its lasting protection
• Need a message that were all connected
• Carefully regulated eco-tourism experience is not necessarily a negative impact. Allow people to experience the place.
• Our visit to Midway was one of the best educational experiences available. Re-open Midway and limit but control this access.
• Native Hawaiians need to have access to pay tribute to the shrines. Can be carefully controlled
• Want opportunities for Kupuna to practice protocol and offer hookupu
• Want a method for tracking the nets and logs impacting the reefs
• Concerned about introduction of alien species from dumping of bilge waters
• Difficult to enforce dumping of wastes/ballast tanks, etc.
• Technology and education are the key to effective enforcement
• Want international education for shipping transiting through the area to avoid dumping, ship wrecks, etc
• Marine mammals depend on the rest of the ecosystem. Want to keep them and bird populations undisturbed
• Because this place is so far north it is likely to be one of the last places where bleaching will occur. Needs to be protected so it survives as potentially devastating coral bleaching occurs/effects elsewhere
• Use previous point to encourage the designation of this area as a World Heritage site.
• Process state and federal work together. Encourage process. Enforcement.
• Cooperative enforcement effort needed. Market well-organized plan
• Cultural basis/kumulipo. Coral as foundation. Volunteer/education/culture.
• Judicial action dramatic. Strong penalties. Clear regulations.
• Fishing permits. 17 current. MSY 600,000 lbs/yr.
• Most fish landings sold in MHI
• Waste/concern/enforcement. Ocean dumping.
• Surveillance. Presence on surface and in air
• No legal loopholes. Climax populations, without fishing. Try to maintain balance when harvesting
• Research employ students monitoring permit requirement
• Coral fishery regulate/no take
• Monitor more carefully
• Aquarium fishery no take
• Strong judicial penalties = strong education. Educate judicial system
• Keep public access. Educate groups small groups
• International waters little enforcement. US waters federal laws operate out to 200 miles.
• Bird populations are protected. Are these increasing populations? Keep increasing.
• Nothing, especially coral, should be taken out
• Those areas that are unique be given the most protection.
• This is a world sanctuary.
• What is happening with the World Heritage designation? Recommend that this increase be pursued in parallel with sanctuary. Designation
• This ecosystem is at edge of coral tolerance, so it is a very fragile system this is the last place in the world for corals with El Nino and warmer water continues
• One last written comment: public support correlates with public knowledge and public contact. Need to think of how to support non- or minimum touch tours of the Leeward Islands. Live aboard cruises in relatively small live-aboard ships? (100-200 passengers)
• Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Navy allowed to test, seems a violation off the bat; active sonar, acoustic pollution; should not be managed by marine fisheries, should be a buffer zone for acoustic; Someone other than NMFS to manage
• Civilian management or independent body to manage sanctuary
• State of Hawaii could manage
• WESPAC does good management
• Parks (national) should manage sanctuary, outside commerce
• WESPAC has bad record (lobster) for management. Lobster fishing has shown not geared toward protection. Primary objection of Sanctuary needs to protect natural, wild nature of area.
• Commercial exploitation of natural resources is concern
• Enforcement how will it be executed? Penalties what will they be?
• Nursery for our food-the nursery has to keep going. Historically decreasing numbers of fish.
• Better info on fishing needed. Education regarding fishing. Misinformation here on fisheries.
• Info has to come from others besides NMFS-more than one source.
• Part of area should allow snorkeling, scuba; but any boats should use mooring buoys to anchor; no throwing anchors on coral. No taking by divers; just looking mooring buoys need to be in place.
• Advisory council citizens should be established for sanctuary
• Cruise ship prohibition in area to protect coral from divers, etc.
• Small boats/sailboats okbig ones prohibited in order to avoid pollution accidental or purposeful boats over 10 people should be prohibited
• Should not restrict boats in manner that favors only wealthy; more access than just boat owners; some public access.
• All people should have access to sanctuarydo it in ways that protect corals
• Part should be off limits; part should be like national park with access; controlled access, scuba groups for example. Lodge/boats that take people there. Midway already set up for this.
• Should be concerned with what the resource itself can takeresource-based decisions, not people based.
• E.O. calls for precautionary approach, sanctuary should too.
• Military trying to become exempt from environmental laws; restrict military in sanctuary; keep it a sanctuary
• Protection from military activity and active sonar testing beyond sanctuary area
• State waters should be included; not managed at all now. Difficult to enforce, not able tofinancially vulnerable areas because contain coral reefs and greatest biodiversity need greatest protection---same level as sanctuary (fed)
• Scientific research throughout area should be encouraged and be part of sanctuary funding.
• Some areas should be free of research
• Research permits need to be based on protecting resource
• Research permit study done on what research will be; will it have ecological effect. Pre-evaluation of research experiment before granting. Responsibility of marine sanctuary to evaluate before research allowed.
• If out to 50 miles, ecologically responsible fishers (pelagic fishers, troll and hand line) should be allowed to continue
• Vessel monitoring system and dockside inspections should continue
• CA, AK fisheries declined due to commercial fishing
• Should have severe limitation on fishing to protect wildlife
• Penalties/enforcement-must have follow through
• Ecosystems are similar, concerned about opportunistic/alien species
• Full protection, as far out as practicable
• No economic exploitation for fishing, coral, lobster, no biologists, no people for one small portion of the sanctuary
• Rough Water- small boats not practice; small boats have no sewage facilities; cruise ships have sewage facilities
• Sanctuary should maintain a baseline of the provisions in the executive order and build on it
• Current rules/regs should be maintained (at the very least)
• Current fishermen should be grandfathered in
• Need more education. Local outreach for schools, fishermen, for entire state of Hawaii, re: damage prevention and preservation
• Concerned with introduced species; no experimental introductions of non-native species
• People (council members) who run sanctuary should not benefit financially from their decisions
• Should be significant sanctions to discourage violators of sanctuary regulations
• If research is encouraged-not necessarily government research independent scientists need same opportunity; some areasno research
• Research permits needed, not all science is kind to environment; resource need come before the scientists
• Maximize protection-extend boundaries as far as possible (to legal limit); increasing protection closer to islands
• VMS, dockside inspections should continue
  

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