The sanctuary designation process for the Papahanaumokuakea monument is the further along of the two proposals. It was launched in 2020 following the inclusion of language in a congressional appropriations bill by Senator Brian Schatz that called on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to begin the process. NOAA has yet to finalize the designation, something not likely to occur until next year at the earliest. Even so, as part of the required process, the council is preparing draft regulations to be forwarded to NOAA\u2019s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Already commercial fishing is banned in the monument, which includes all of the waters surrounding the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands archipelago. What the council considered last month was whether and, if so, to what extent other fishing activities should be allowed, including non-commercial, cultural, and research. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a member of the council\u2019s own advisory panel on non-commercial fishing pointed out, non-commercial fishing in the area is virtually non-existent, given the difficulty and expense of sailing up to the remote islands from the Main Hawaiian Islands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Still, Guam council member Manny Due\u00f1as was indignant on behalf of Hawaiians. Due\u00f1as, the press release stated, observed that fishing serves to perpetuate Hawaiian culture, and does not \u201cpreserve it in a pickle jar.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The council eventually approved a motion that urged the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to \u201cclarify\u201d certain issues relating to the proposed sanctuary: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Limiting the boundaries to the current area \u201cto honor the previous agreement made with the Kaua`i fishing community;\u201d<\/li>
- \u201cIncorporating cooperative research, where fishing is conducted along with scientists, in the Monuments [sic] and proposed sanctuary to provide additional value to assessing stocks across the entire Hawai`i archipelago;\u201d and<\/li>
- \u201cApproaches to address Native Hawaiian Practices that include fishing within the proposed sanctuary, including considering them along with other non-commercial fishing.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Further action on proposed regulations for the sanctuary is likely to be considered at the council\u2019s next meeting in September.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Pacific Remote Islands Area<\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Foraging-and-diving-seabirds-Pacific-Remote-Islands-Photo-Credit-Kydd-Pollock-TNC-1024x477.jpg\")
<\/a>Foraging and diving seabirds Pacific Remote Islands. Credit: Kydd Pollock TNC<\/sub><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n As for the suggestion that the PRI monument be expanded, that, too, got council members\u2019 dander up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At present, the monument consists of almost 500,000 square miles, encompassing seven islands and atolls: Baker, Howland, and Jarvis islands; Johnston, Wake, and Palmyra atolls, and Kingman Reef. Current monument boundaries extend out 50 nautical miles from land. Earlier this year, the Pacific Remote Islands Coalition proposed expanding it to 200 nautical miles, the full extent of the U.S. EEZ, increasing the protected area to more than 750,000 square miles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Council staffer Mark Fitchett gave the council members a presentation on the proposal. The expansion area is already closed to all commercial fishing except U.S.-flagged vessels. While Hawai`i-based longline vessels on occasion fish inside the EEZ of the Pacific Remote Island areas, U.S.-flagged purse seiners also fish there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fitchett focused much of his presentation on the potential impact the closure of the area could have on American Samoa, where the Starkist tuna cannery is the largest employer, by far, in the territory. The U.S. purse seine fleet is already down to just 13 vessels, and the cannery relies heavily on the fish they deliver. \u201cA further exodus of U.S.-flagged vessels jeopardizes the cannery\u2019s viability,\u201d he stated. As such, it also amounts to the perpetuation of equity and environmental injustice against Pacific Islanders, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Council chair Archie Soliai \u2013 now head of American Samoa\u2019s Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources and former manager of the cannery \u2013 referred to a June 15 letter the territorial governor, Lemanu P.S. Mauga, wrote to Biden, strongly opposing the expansion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe tuna industry is the largest private sector employer in American Samoa, supporting jobs for nearly a third of American Samoa\u2019s workforce,\u201d Mauga wrote. \u201cI implore your consideration to keep these U.S. waters open to commercial fishing for the U.S. fleet so our tuna industry that supports our fragile economy can continue to be sustained. Without a sustainable fish supply, our local tuna industry will collapse and our economy soon will follow. This would lead to an economic catastrophe that no U.S. state or territory has experienced in recent times.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In contrast, Hawai`i Governor David Ige expressed his strong support for the expansion in a May 27 letter to Biden. This action, he wrote, \u201cwill safeguard areas of open ocean ecosystems that are intricately connected to nearshore and terrestrial ecosystems. Expansion would also protect meaningful habitats for endangered and threatened species, such as sharks and birds, who are traveling well beyond the current boundaries to breed, forage, and rest. Additionally, the expansion will protect 98 undersea mountains, or seamounts, which serve as ecological hotspots for biodiversity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No one spoke in favor of the expansion at the council meeting. Without dissent, it passed a motion that directed council staff to write to Biden, \u201crequesting a comprehensive evaluation of the unintended consequences, including social and economic impacts, of a proposed expansion\u201d of the monument. It also directed staff \u201cto write letters to U.S. territorial governors regarding the proposal\u2019s impacts on U.S. fisheries and unintended negative consequences related to U.S. territorial economies and conservation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
30 x 30<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
In 2021, four federal agencies \u2013 the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and the Council on Environmental Quality \u2013 proposed the \u201cAmerica the Beautiful\u201d plan, which, among other things, called for conserving 30 percent of the country\u2019s land and waters by 2030.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When it comes to setting aside marine areas for protection, Wespac argues, the Pacific region is doing way more than its fair share. Council staff has estimated that the existing marine managed areas in the Pacific are already so vast that there is little need to conserve marine areas elsewhere. Should the Pacific Remote Islands monument be expanded as proposed, the council argues, the percentage of marine waters protected would reach 31 percent, with almost all of that in the Central Pacific. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Western Pacific region has met 97 percent of the \u201830×30\u2019 goal to conserve 30 percent of all U.S. lands and waters,\u201d the council stated in a press release.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet when it comes to the very definition of what counts as conservation, the matter is still up in the air. Council staffer Fitchett reported to the council on the discussions during meetings of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC) subcommittee on Area-Based Management, which still had not come up with a definition. (The CCC is made up of leadership and top staff of all eight regional fishery management councils.) While a suggestion had been made to adopt the definition of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature for OECM (\u201cother effective area-based conservation measures\u201d), the CCC subcommittee balked at that, since \u201cmany of our areas may not meet the OECM criteria,\u201d according to subcommittee meeting minutes. Subcommittee members also proposed including all of the U.S. EEZ areas under council jurisdictions \u2013 effectively all U.S. marine waters \u2013 inasmuch as the Magnuson-Stevens Act \u201cprovides conservation for 100 percent of the EEZ.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Council staff did eventually pull together a table of protected areas, including the Papahanaumokuakea monument, Rose Atoll monument (American Samoa), the Pacific Remote Islands monument, and the Marianas Trench monument, but also added in the longline exclusion areas around the Main Hawaiian Islands and the territories (the widths of which can vary from 30 nautical miles from shore to 75 miles).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finally, the table includes the false killer whale Southern Exclusion Zone, an area of roughly 100,000 square miles \u2013 which, however, is only closed when the Hawai`i longline fleet\u2019s take of false killer whales inside the EEZ exceeds the permitted level. The SEZ, the council states, establishes \u201cnearly full protection for pelagic ecosystem when trigger[ed] by take of false killer whales by the pelagic longline fishery.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis area has remained closed the majority of the last three years,\u201d the council states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Actually, the SEZ was last closed in 2018. Although the trigger for closure was met in 2021, no closure was effected because the injury determinations for false killer whales taken late in the year were not made until 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Council Budget Woes<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
For at least the last decade, the Council\u2019s base budget has not included funds to cover personnel costs of some of its core employees. Supplementary grants from the National Marine Fisheries Service\u2019s Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) have for years paid for the council\u2019s work to protect coral reefs and sea turtles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But budget cuts to NMFS have meant that PIRO is no longer able to supplement the council\u2019s expenses in the manner to which the council has become accustomed. Specifically, the council no longer has the funds it needs to cover these programs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe are taking a budget hit of $343,000 from NMFS for this year,\u201d council executive director Kitty Simonds reported. \u201cWe have been going back and forth with our region to discuss the need for these funds, which include salary and fringes for one of our staff, our capacity-building efforts, and a share of the contract that produces the [Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation] report.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On hearing of the cuts on the first day of the meeting, several council members voiced their anger at NMFS. American Samoa council member William Sword wanted to know, \u201cWhere is the equity and environmental justice in that? \u2026 This needs to be corrected. It\u2019s fundamentally wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Guam council member Due\u00f1as was outraged: \u201cPIRO, you are the egg that came out of our okole.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PIRO director Michael Tosatto told the council that PIRO had for years used discretionary funds to support the council in a number of areas. \u201cThis reduction,\u201d he said, referring to the $343,000 cut, \u201cwas caused by a significant reduction in PIRO\u2019s budget\u2026 PIRO took a hit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tosatto went on to explain that he had advised the council to include salaries for permanent employees into the council\u2019s base budget, adding that the PIRO discretionary funding was not available every year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Two days later, during the council\u2019s more expansive discussion of its budget, Simonds said it was \u201cvery, very important\u201d that the council receive funding for the SAFE report coordinator, its capacity-building efforts, scholarship program, summer high school outreach, and its sea turtle program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regarding the turtle protection efforts, Simonds continued, in 2010, \u201cCongress provided several million dollars for observers and the turtle program. The funding we received started to dwindle down until it was down to $200,000, which covered at the time our [turtle] program coordinator,\u201d Asuka Ishizaki. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
She said that the council must now dive into its regular administrative budget and find the funds to cover it. Also, she said, \u201cwe\u2019re asking headquarters to provide the region with funds for these programs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tosatto again attempted to explain why PIRO could no longer fund these positions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere are many reasons, many issues we could discuss,\u201d he told the council. \u201cI can tell you to characterize this as a budget cut [to the council] is not the most accurate way to portray it. It is more that these are extra funds that were provided in addition to the council\u2019s appropriated amounts of money. These are monies PIRO took out of its own budget\u2026 As Kitty stated, this reflected a long-term commitment to sea turtle conservation, which peaked at $7 million in 2010. Now, literally, it\u2019s been absorbed into the larger NMFS budget.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tosatto noted that the cost of running the observer program, which PIRO underwrites, has been \u201cseverely underfunded,\u201d forcing PIRO to use more of its turtle-protection funds to cover that. PIRO\u2019s core fishery management budget was cut by about $700,000, he said, and there were no longer the discretionary funds that were once directed to the council. \u201cI needed that $700,000 that had been going to the council to cover the needs of the observer program,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, redirecting funds in the council\u2019s base budget to cover items that no longer are paid for by PIRO discretionary funds is not allowed. \u201cThere is the term \u2018line-item integrity,\u201d Tosatto said. \u201cYou can\u2019t move funds across certain areas. The council can\u2019t reprogram funds without approval.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cGoing forward, it would be helpful to the council to cover its base activities in its base budget. \u2026 If activities like the high school program are desired as base activities, the council has to work that into their base budget,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Patricia Tummons<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
“Council Offended by Removal of Last Vestiges of US Ocean Waters Open to Fishing.” That was the headline on a press release issued June 23 by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. Members of the panel, the presser stated, were … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14508,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,498,17,422],"tags":[7],"class_list":["post-14507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fisheries","category-july-2022","category-marine","category-nwhi-fishing","tag-patricia-tummons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14507","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14507\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/14508"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Foraging-and-diving-seabirds-Pacific-Remote-Islands-Photo-Credit-Kydd-Pollock-TNC-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a>