Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the 

Western Pacific Region: From Species-Based Fishery 

Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans 

Appendices 
This page left blank intentionally. 
 

Appendix A. 

List of Current and Proposed 

Management Unit Species (MUS) under 

Alternative 2D (Preferred Alternative) 
 

This page left blank intentionally. 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-1 

Appendix A: List of Current and Proposed Management Unit Species (MUS) 

under Alternative 2D (Preferred Alternative) 

Table A-1: Current Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Management Unit Species (MUS) 

Bottomfish FMP Management Unit Species (BMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Aphareus 

rutilans 

silver jaw jobfish Pristipomoides 

auricilla

yellowtail snapper 

Aprion virescens gray jobfish Pristipomoides 

filamentosus

pink snapper 

Caranx ignobilis giant trevally Pristipomoides 

flavipinnis

yelloweye snapper 

Caranx lugubris black jack Pristipomoides 

seiboldii

pink snapper 

Epinephelus 

fasciatus

blacktip grouper Pristipomoides 

zonatus

snapper 

Epinephelus 

quernus

sea bass Pseudocaranx dentex thicklip trevally 

Etelis 

carbunculus

red snapper Seriola dumerili amberjack 

Etelis coruscans longtail snapper Variola louti lunartail grouper 

Lethrinus 

amboinensis

ambon emperor Beryx splendens alfonsin 

Lethrinus 

rubrioperculatus

redgill emperor Hyperoglyphe 

japonica

ratfish 

Lutjanus 

kasmira

blue stripe snapper Pseudopentaceros 

richardsoni

armorhead 

Table A-2: Current Crustaceans Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

Management Unit Species (MUS) 

Crustaceans FMP Management Unit Species (CMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name 

Panulirus marginatus spiny lobster 

Panulirus penicillatus spiny lobster 

Family Scyllaridae slipper lobster 

Ranina ranina kona crab 

Heterocarpus spp. deepwater shrimp 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-2 

Table A-3: Current Precious Corals Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

 Management Unit Species (MUS) 

Precious Corals FMP Management Unit Species (PC MUS) 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Corallium spp. Any coral of the genus 

Corallium.

Calyptrophora spp. gold coral 

Corallium 

secundum

pink coral 

(also known as red 

coral) 

Lepidisis olapa bamboo coral 

Corallium regale pink coral 

(also known as red 

coral) 

Acanella spp. black coral 

Corallium 

laauense

pink coral 

(also known as red 

coral) 

Antipathes dichotoma black coral 

Gerardia spp. gold coral Antipathes grandis black coral 

Narella spp. gold coral Antipathes ulex black coral 

Table A-4: Current Pelagics Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

Management Unit Species (MUS) 

Pelagics FMP Management Unit Species (PMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Coryphaena spp. mahimahi 

(dolphinfishes) 

Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark 

Acanthocybium 

solandri 

wahoo Isurus paucus longfin mako shark 

Makaira mazara; 

Makaira indica 

Indo-Pacific blue 

marlin, black marlin 

Lamna ditropis salmon shark 

Tetrapturus 

audax 

striped marlin Thunnus alalunga albacore 

Tetrapturus 

angustirostris 

shortbill spearfish Thunnus obesus bigeye tuna 

Xiphias gladius swordfish Thunnus albacares yellowfin tuna 

Istiophorus 

platypterus 

sailfish Thunnus thynnus northern bluefin tuna 

Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher 

shark 

Katsuwonus pelamis skipjack tuna 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-3 

Pelagics FMP Management Unit Species (PMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Alopias 

superciliousus 

bigeye thresher shark Euthynnus affinis kawakawa 

Alopias vulpinus common thresher 

shark 

Lampris spp. moonfish 

Carcharhinus 

falciformis 

silky shark Gempylidae oilfish family 

Carcharhinus 

longimanus 

oceanic whitetip 

shark 

 family Bramidae pomfret 

Prionace glauca blue shark Auxis spp., Scomber 

spp., Allothunus spp.

other tuna relatives 

Table A-5: Current Coral Reef Ecosystems Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Management 

Unit Species (MUS) (Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) 

Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa (CHCRT) MUS 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Carcharhinidae 

Sphyrnidae 

sharks Scaridae parrotfishes 

Carangidae jacks and scads Pomacentridae damselfishes 

Serrandiae groupers Siganidae rabbitfishes 

Lutjanidae snappers Sphyraenidae barracudas 

Lethrinidae emperors Pomacanthidae angelfishes 

Acanthuridae surgeonfishes Cirrhitidae hawkfishes 

Balistidae trigger fishes Dasyatididae 

Myliobatidae 

Mobulidae 

rays and skates 

Holocentridae solderfishes and 

squirrel-fishes 

Ephippidae batfishes 

Kuhliidae flagtails Monodactylidae monos 

Kyphosidae rudderfishes Haemulidae sweetlips 

Labridae wrasses Echineididae remoras 

Mullidae goatfishes Malacanthidae tilefishes 

Mugilidae mullets Acanthoclinidae spiny basslets 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-4 

Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa (CHCRT) MUS 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Muraenidae 

Chlopsidae 

Congridae 

Moringuidae 

Ophichthidae 

eels Pseudochromidae dottybacks 

Polynemidae threadfins Apogonidae cardinalfishes 

Blenniidae blennies Scorpaenidae scorpionfishes 

Bothidae 

Soleidae 

Pleurnectidae 

flounders and soles Pinguipedidae sandperches 

Ostraciidae trunkfishes Caracanthidae coral crouchers 

Tetradontidae puffer fishes and 

porcupine fishes 

Antennariidae frogfishes 

Plesiopidae prettyfins Caesionidae fusiliers 

Tetrarogidae wasp fishes Grammistidae soapfishes 

 

Table A-6: Coral Reef Ecosystems Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

 Management Unit Species (MUS) (Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) 

Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa (PHCRT) MUS 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Syngnathidae pipefishes and 

seahorses 

Anomalopidae flashlightfishes 

Aulostomidae trumpetfishes Clupeidae herrings 

Fistulariidae cornetfishes Engraulidae anchovies 

Monocanthidae filefishes Gobiidae gobies 

Chaetodontidae butterfly fishes Gymnosarda unicolor dog tooth tuna 

Order: 

Stomatopoda 

Order: Decapoda 

Reef-Associated 

Crustaceans: 

 lobsters 

 shrimps/mantis 

 crabs 

Holothuridae 

Diadematidae 

Reef-Associated 

Echinoderms:

sea cucumbers and 

sea urchins 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-5 

Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa (PHCRT) MUS 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Octopodidae 

Sepiidae 

Loliginidae 

Reef-Associated 

Cephalopods: 

octopus 

squids 

cuttlefish 

Turbinidae 

Trochidae 

Strombidae 

Cypraeidae 

Reef-Associated 

Gastropods: 

turban shells 

top shells 

sea snails 

sea slugs 

conchs 

cowries 

Ostreidae 

Tridacnidae 

Reef-Associated 

Bivalves: 

oysters 

clams 

Sabellidae 

Annelids 

Reef-Associated 

Worms: 

segmented worms 

flatworms 

bristleworms 

ribbonworms 

feather duster worms 

Class: 

Cyanophyta 

Class: 

Chlorophyta 

Class: 

Rhodophyta 

Class: 

Phaeophyta 

Reef-Associated 

Algae: 

blue-green algae 

green algae 

red algae 

brown algae 

Porifera Reef-Associated 

Sponges:

Heliopora 

Tubipora 

Azooxanthellates 

Fungiidae 

Millepora 

All Reef-Associated 

Stony Corals and 

Live Rock: 

 Gorgonians 

Actinaria 

Zoanthinaria 

Stylasteridae 

Solanderidae 

Other ReefAssociated Stony 

Corals and Live 

Rock: 

Phylum:

Coelenterata 

(Cnidaria) 

Reef-Associated 

Hydrozoans and 

Bryzoans:

Chordata Reef-Associated 

Tunicates: 

sea squirts 

Note: All other Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS that are marine plants, invertebrates, or fishes that spend the 

majority of their nonpelagic (postsettlement) life history stages within waters less than or equal to 50 fathoms 

in total depth. 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-6 

Table A-7: Alternative 2B (Preferred), American Samoa Archipelago 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Management Unit Species (MUS)

American Samoa FEP Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

Aphareus rutilans red snapper/silvermouth palu-gutusiliva 

Aprion virescens gray snapper/jobfish asoama 

Caranx ignobilis giant trevally/jack sapoanae 

Caranx lugubris black trevally/jack tafauli 

Epinephelus fasciatus blacktip grouper fausi 

Variola louti lunartail grouper papa, velo 

Etelis carbunculus red snapper palu malau 

Etelis coruscans red snapper palu-loa 

Lethrinus amboinensis ambon emperor filoa-gutumumu 

Lethrinus rubrioperculatus redgill emperor filoa-paomumu 

Lutjanus kasmira blueline snapper savane 

Pristipomoides auricilla yellowtail snapper palu-i’usama 

Pristipomoides filamentosus pink snapper palu-‘ena‘ena 

Pristipomoides flavipinnis yelloweye snapper palu-sina 

Pristipomoides seiboldii pink snapper palu 

Pristipomoides zonatus snapper palu-ula, palu-sega 

Seriola dumerili amberjack malauli 

 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-7 

American Samoa FEP Crustacean Management Unit Species (CMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

Panulirus marginatus spiny lobster ula 

Panulirus penicillatus spiny lobster ula-sami 

Family Scyllaridae slipper lobster papata 

Ranina ranina Kona crab pa’a 

Heterocarpus spp. deep water shrimp NA 

 

 

American Samoa FEP Precious Coral Management Unit Species (PC MUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

Corallium secundum pink coral 

(also known as red coral) amu piniki-mumu 

Corallium regale pink coral 

(also known as red coral) amu piniki-mumu 

Corallium laauense pink coral 

(also known as red coral) amu piniki-mumu 

Gerardia spp. gold coral amu auro 

Narella spp. gold coral amu auro 

Calyptrophora spp. gold coral amu auro 

Lepidisis olapa bamboo coral amu ofe 

Acanella spp. bamboo coral amu ofe 

Antipathes dichotoma black coral amu uliuli 

Antipathes grandis black coral amu uliuli 

Antipathes ulex black coral amu uliuli 

 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-8 

American Samoa FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) (**= unknown) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

Acanthurus olivaceus orange-spot surgeonfish afinamea 

Acanthurus xanthopterus yellowfin surgeonfish ** 

Acanthurus triostegus convict tang aanini 

Acanthurus dussumieri eye-striped surgeonfish ** 

Acanthurus nigroris blue-lined surgeon ponepone, 

gaitolama 

Acanthurus lineatus blue-banded surgeonfish alogo 

Acanthurus nigricauda blackstreak surgeonfish pone-i’usama 

Acanthurus nigricans whitecheek surgeonfish laulama 

Acanthurus guttatus white-spotted 

surgeonfish maogo 

Acanthurus blochii ringtail surgeonfish ** 

Acanthurus nigrofuscus brown surgeonfish ponepone 

Acanthurus mata elongate surgeonfish ** 

Acanthurus pyroferus mimic surgeonfish ** 

Ctenochaetus strigosus yellow-eyed surgeonfish pone 

Ctenochaetus striatus striped bristletooth pone, pala’ia, 

logoulia 

Ctenochaetus binotatus twospot bristletooth ** 

Naso unicornus bluespine unicornfish ume-isu 

Naso lituratus orange spine unicornfish ili’ilia, umelei 

Naso hexacanthus black tongue unicornfish ** 

Naso vlamingii bignose unicornfish ume-masimasi 

Naso annulatus whitemargin unicornfish ** 

Naso brevirostris spotted unicornfish ume-ulutao 

Acanthuridae 

(Surgeonfishes) 

Naso thynnoides barred unincornfish ** 

Balistoides viridescens titan triggerfish sumu, sumulaulau 

Balistapus undulatus orange striped triggerfish ** 

Melichthys vidua pinktail triggerfish 

sumu-

‘apa’apasina, 

sumu-si’umumu

Melichthys niger black triggerfish sumu-uli 

Pseudobalistes fuscus blue triggerfish sumu-laulau 

Rhinecanthus aculeatus picassofish sumu-uo’uo, 

sumu-aloalo 

Sufflamen fraenatum bridled triggerfish sumugase’ele’ele 

Selar crumenophthalmus bigeye scad atule 

Balistidae 

(Triggerfishes) 

Decapterus macarellus mackerel scad atuleau, 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-9 

American Samoa FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) (**= unknown) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

namuauli 

Carcharhinus 

amblyrhynchos grey reef shark malie-aloalo 

Carcharhinus 

albimarginatus silvertip shark aso 

Carcharhinus 

galapagensis galapagos shark malie 

Carcharhinus 

melanopterus blacktip reef shark apeape, maliealamata 

Carcharhinidae 

(Sharks) 

Triaenodon obesus whitetip reef shark malu 

Myripristis berndti bigscale soldierfish malau-ugatele, 

malau-va’ava’a 

Myripristis adusta bronze soldierfish malau-tui 

Myripristis murdjan blotcheye soldierfish ** 

Myripristis amaena brick soldierfish ** 

Myripristis pralinia scarlet soldierfish malau-mamo, 

malau-va’ava’a 

Myripristis violacea violet soldierfish malau-tuauli 

Myripristis vittata whitetip soldierfish ** 

Myripristis chryseres yellowfin soldierfish ** 

Myripristis kuntee pearly soldierfish malau-pu’u 

Myripristis hexagona double tooth squirrelfish ** 

Sargocentron 

melanospilos blackspot squirrelfish ** 

Sargocentron microstoma file-lined squirrelfish malau-tianiu 

Sargocentron tiereoides pink squirrelfish ** 

Sargocentron diadema crown squirrelfish 

malau-tui, 

malau-talapu’u, 

malau-tusitusi, 

malau-pauli. 

Sargocentron 

punctatissimum peppered squirrelfish ** 

Sargocentron tiere blue-lined squirrelfish ** 

Sargocentron spiniferum saber or long jaw 

squirrelfish 

tamalu, mumalau, malautoa 

Holocentridae 

(Soldierfish/Squir

-relfish 

Holocentridae 

(Soldierfish/ 

Squirrelfish) 

Neoniphon spp. spotfin squirrelfish ** 

Kuhliidae Kuhlia mugil barred flag-tail safole, inato 

(Flagtails) Kyphosus biggibus rudderfish nanue 

Kyphosidae 

(Rudderfish) Kyphosus cinerascens rudderfish nanue, matamutu, 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-10 

American Samoa FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) (**= unknown) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

mutumutu 

Kyphosus vaigienses rudderfish nanue 

Cheilinus undulatus Napoleon wrasse lalafi, tagafa, 

malakea 

Cheilinus trilobatus triple-tail wrasse lalafimatamumu 

Cheilinus chlorourus floral wrasse lalafi-matapua’a

Cheilinus fasciatus harlequin tuskfish lalafi-pulepule 

Oxycheilinus 

diagrammus bandcheek wrasse sugale 

Oxycheilinus arenatus arenatus wrasse sugale 

Xyrichtys aneitensis whitepatch wrasse sugale-tatanu 

Cheilio inermis cigar wrasse sugale-mo’o 

Hemigymnus melapterus blackeye thicklip 

sugale-laugutu, 

sugale-uli, 

sugale-aloa, 

sugale-lupe 

Hemigymnus fasciatus barred thicklip sugalegutumafia 

Halichoeres trimaculatus three-spot wrasse lape, sugalepagota 

Halichoeres hortulanus checkerboard wrasse 

sugale-a’au, 

sugale-pagota, 

ifigi 

Halichoeres 

margaritaceus weedy surge wrasse sugale-uluvela 

Thalassoma purpureum surge wrasse uloulo-gatala, 

patagaloa 

Thalassoma 

quinquevittatum red ribbon wrasse lape-moana 

Thalassoma lutescens sunset wrasse sugalesamasama 

Labridae 

(Wrasses) 

Novaculichthys 

taeniourus rockmover wrasse 

sugale-la’o, 

sugale-taili, 

sugale-gasufi 

Mulloidichthys spp. yellow goatfish i’asina, vete, 

afulu 

Mulloidichthys 

vanicolensis yellowfin goatfish vete 

Mulloidichthys 

flaviolineatus yellowstripe goatfish afolu, afulu 

Mullidae 

(Goatfishes) 

Parupeneus spp. banded goatfish afoul, afulu 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-11 

American Samoa FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) (**= unknown) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

Parupeneus barberinus dash-dot goatfish 

tusia, 

tulausaena, 

ta’uleia 

Parupeneus bifasciatus doublebar goatfish matulau-moana 

Parupeneus heptacanthus redspot goatfish moana-ula 

Parupeneus cyclostomas yellowsaddle goatfish i’asina, vete, 

afulu, moana 

Parupeneus pleurostigma side-spot goatfish matulauilamutu 

Parupeneus multifaciatus multi-barred goatfish i’asina, vete, 

afulu 

Crenimugil crenilabis fringelip mullet anae, aua, 

fuafua 

Mugilidae 

(Mullets) 

Neomyxus leuciscus false mullet moi, poi 

Gymnothorax 

flavimarginatus yellow margin moray eel pusi 

Gymnothorax javanicus giant moray eel maoa’e 

Muraenidae 

(Moray eels) 

Gymnothorax undulatus undulated moray eel pusi-pulepule 

Octopodidae Octopus cyanea octopus fe’e 

(Octopus) Octopus ornatus octopus fe’e 

Polynemidae Polydactylus sexfilis threadfin umiumia, i’ausi 

Heteropriacanthus 

cruentatus glasseye matapula Pricanthidae 

(Bigeye) 

Priacanthus hamrur bigeye matapula 

Calotomus carolinus stareye parrotfish fuga 

Scarus spp. parrotfish 

fuga, galouluto’i, fugavalea, laeamamanu 

Scaridae 

(Parrotfishes) 

Hipposcarus longiceps pacific longnose 

parrotfish 

ulapokea, laeaulapokea 

Scombridae Gymnosarda unicolor dogtooth tuna tagi 

Siganidae 

(Rabbitfish) Siganus aregenteus forktail rabbitfish loloa, lo 

Sphyraenidae Sphyraena helleri Heller’s barracuda sapatu 

(Barracuda) Sphyraena barracuda great barracuda saosao 

Turbinidae 

(green snails Turbo spp. green snails alili 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-12 

American Samoa FEP Coral Reef Ecosytem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) (**= NA; ## = unspecified)

Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

Labridae 

Wrasses 

(those species not listed as 

Currently Harvested Coral 

Reef Taxa or CHCRT) 

sugale, sugale-vaolo, sugalea’a, lalafi, lape-a’au, la’ofia 

Carcharhinidae 

Sphyrnidae 

sharks 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

malie, apoapo, moemoeao 

Dasyatididae 

Myliobatidae rays and skates fai 

Ephippidae batfishes pe’ape’a 

Haemulidae sweetlips mutumutu, misimisi, ava’avamoana 

Echeneidae remoras talitaliuli 

Malacanthidae tilefishes mo’o, mo’otai 

Pseudochromidae dottybacks tiva 

Plesiopidae prettyfins aneanea, tafuti 

Caracanthidae coral crouchers tapua 

Anomalopidae flashlightfishes ## 

Serrandiae 

groupers 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT or Bottomfish 

Management Unit Species 

or BMUS) 

gatala, ataata, vaolo, gatala-uli, 

gatala-sega, gatala-aleva, 

ateate, apoua, susami, gatalasina, gatala-mumu 

Carangidae 

jacks and scads 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT or BMUS) 

lupo, lupota, mamalusi, ulua, 

sapoanae, taupapa, nato, filu, 

atuleau, malauli-apamoana, 

malauli-sinasama, malaulimatalapo’a, lai 

Holocentridae 

soldierfishes and 

squirrelfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

malau 

Mullidae 

goatfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

i’asina, vete, afulu, afoul, 

ulula’oa 

Acanthuridae 

surgeonfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

pone, palagi 

Clupeidae herrings pelupelu, nefu 

Engraulidae anchovies nefu, file 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-13 

American Samoa FEP Coral Reef Ecosytem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) (**= NA; ## = unspecified)

Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

Gobiidae gobies 

mano’o, mano’o-popo, mano’ofugafuga, mano’o-apofusami, 

mano’o-a’au 

Lutjanidae 

snappers 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT or BMUS) 

mu, mu-taiva, tamala, malai, 

feloitega, mu-mafalaugutu, 

savane-ulusama, matala’oa 

Balistidae trigger fishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

sumu, sumu-papa, sumu-taulau.

Siganidae 

rabbitfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

lo 

Kyphosidae 

rudderfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

nanue, matamutu, mutumutu 

Caesionidae fusiliers ulisega, atule-toto 

Lethrinidae 

emperors 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT or BMUS) 

filoa, mata’ele’ele, ulamalosi 

Muraenidae 

Chlopsidae 

Congridae 

Moringuidae 

Ophichthidae 

eels 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

pusi, maoa’e, atapanoa, u’aulu, 

apeape, fafa, gatamea, pusisolasulu 

Apogonidae cardinalfishes 

fo, fo-tusiloloa, fo-si’umu, fololoa, fo-tala, fo-manifi, foaialo, fo-tuauli 

Zanclidae spp. moorish idols pe’ape’a, laulaufau 

Chaetodontidae butterfly fishes 

tifitifi, si’u, i’usamasama, 

tifitifi-segaula, laulafau-laumea, 

alosina 

Pomacanthidae angelfishes 

tu’u’u, tu’u’u-sama, tu’u’ulega, tu’u’u-ulavapua, tu’u’umatamalu, tu’u’u-alomu, 

tu’u’u-uluvela, tu’u’u-atugauli, 

tu’u’u-tusiuli, tu’u’u-manini. 

Pomacentridae damselfishes tu’u’u, mutu, mamo, tu’u’ulumane 

Scorpaenidae scorpionfishes i’atala, la’otele, nofu 

Blenniidae blennies mano’o, mano’o-mo’o, 

mano’o-palea, mano’o-la’o 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-14 

American Samoa FEP Coral Reef Ecosytem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) (**= NA; ## = unspecified)

Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

Sphyraenidae 

barracudas 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

sapatu 

Cirrhitidae 

hawkfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

la’o, ulutu’i, lausiva 

Antennariidae frogfishes la’otale, nofu 

Syngnathidae pipefishes and seahorses ## 

Pinguipedidae sandperches ta’oto 

Gymnosarda unicolor dog tooth tuna tagi 

Aulostomus chinensis trumpetfish taoto-ena, taoto-sama, 

‘au’aulauti, taotito 

Fistularia commersoni cornetfish taotao, taoto-ama 

Tetradontidae puffer fishes and porcupine 

fishes 

sue, sue-vaolo, sue-va’a, suelega, sue-mu, sue-uli, sue-lape, 

sue-afa, sue-sugale. 

Bothidae 

Soleidae flounders and soles ali 

Ostraciidae trunkfishes moamoa 

Echinoderms sea cucumbers and sea 

urchins fugafuga, tuitui, sava’e 

Heliopora blue corals amu 

Tubipora organpipe corals amu 

Azooxanthellates ahermatypic corals ** 

Fungiidae mushroom corals amu 

small and large coral polyps amu 

Millepora fire corals amu 

soft corals and gorgonians amu 

Actinaria Anemones lumane, matalelei 

Zoanthinaria soft zoanthid corals ** 

Mollusca (those species not listed as 

CHCRT) ## 

Gastropoda sea snails sisi-sami 

Trochus spp. aliao, alili 

Opistobranches sea slugs sea 

Pinctada margaritifera black-lipped pearl oyster ## 

Tridacnidae giant clam faisua 

Other Bivalves other clams pipi, asi, fatuaua, tio, pae, fole 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-15 

American Samoa FEP Coral Reef Ecosytem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa) (**= NA; ## = unspecified)

Scientific Name English Common Name Samoan Name 

Crustaceans 

lobsters, shrimps/mantis 

shrimps, true crabs and 

hermit crabs 

(those species not listed as 

CMUS) 

ula, pa’a, kuku, papata 

Tunicates sea squirts ## 

Porifera sponges ## 

Stylasteridae lace corals amu 

Solanderidae hydroid corals amu 

Annelids 

segmented worms 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

## 

Algae seaweed limu 

Live rock ## 

All other coral reef ecosystem management unit species that are marine plants, invertebrates, and 

fishes that are not listed in the preceding tables or are not bottomfish management unit species, 

crustacean management unit species, Pacific pelagic management unit species, precious coral or 

seamount groundfish. 

Samoan names provided by Fini Aitaoto 

Table A-8: Alternative 2B (Preferred), Mariana Archipelago 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Management Unit Species (MUS) 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS)

Scientific Name English Common Name Chamorro/Carolinian Name 

Aphareus rutilans red snapper/silvermouth lehi/maroobw 

Aprion virescens gray snapper/jobfish gogunafon/aiwe 

Caranx ignobilis giant trevally/jack tarakitu/etam 

Caranx lugubris black trevally/jack tarakiton attelong/orong 

Epinephelus fasciatus blacktip grouper gadao/meteyil 

Variola louti lunartail grouper bueli/bwele 

Etelis carbunculus red snapper buninas agaga/ 

falaghal moroobw 

Etelis coruscans red snapper buninas/taighulupegh 

Lethrinus rubrioperculatus redgill emperor mafuti/atigh 

Lutjanus kasmira blueline snapper funai/saas 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-16 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS)

Scientific Name English Common Name Chamorro/Carolinian Name 

Pristipomoides auricilla yellowtail snapper 

buninas/ 

falaghal-maroobw 

Pristipomoides filamentosus pink snapper 

buninas/ 

falaghal-maroobw 

Pristipomoides flavipinnis yelloweye snapper 

buninas/ 

falaghal-maroobw 

Pristipomoides seiboldii pink snapper NA 

Pristipmoides zonatus snapper 

buninas rayao amiriyu/ 

falaghal-maroobw 

Seriola dumerili amberjack 

tarakiton tadong/ 

meseyugh 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Crustacean Management Unit Species (CMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Chamorro/Carolinian Name 

Panulirus marginatus spiny lobster mahongang 

Panulirus penicillatus spiny lobster mahongang 

Family Scyllaridae slipper lobster pa’pangpang 

Ranina ranina Kona crab NA 

Heterocarpus spp. deepwater shrimp NA 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Precious Corals Management Unit Species (PC MUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Chamorro/Carolinian Name 

Corallium secundum 

pink coral 

(also known as red coral) NA 

Corallium regale 

pink coral 

(also known as red coral) NA 

Corallium laauense 

pink coral 

(also known as red coral) NA 

Gerardia spp. gold coral NA 

Narella spp. gold coral NA 

Calyptrophora spp. gold coral NA 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-17 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Precious Corals Management Unit Species (PC MUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Chamorro/Carolinian Name 

Lepidisis olapa bamboo coral NA 

Acanella spp. bamboo coral NA 

Antipathes dichotoma black coral NA 

Antipathes grandis black coral NA 

Antipathes ulex black coral NA 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Chamorro/Carolinian 

Name 

Acanthurus olivaceus orange-spot 

surgeonfish NA 

Acanthurus 

xanthopterus yellowfin surgeonfish hugupao dangulo/ 

mowagh 

Acanthurus triostegus convict tang kichu/limell 

Acanthurus 

leucopareius whitebar surgeonfish NA 

Acanthurus lineatus blue-banded 

surgeonfish hiyok/filaang 

Acanthurus nigricauda blackstreak surgeonfish NA 

Acanthurus nigricans whitecheek surgeonfish NA 

Acanthurus guttatus white-spotted 

surgeonfish NA 

Acanthurus blochii ringtail surgeonfish NA 

Acanthurus pyroferus mimic surgeonfish NA 

Zebrasoma flavescens Yellow tang NA 

Ctenochaetus striatus striped bristletooth NA 

Ctenochaetus binotatus twospot bristletooth NA 

Naso unicornus bluespine unicornfish tataga/igh-falafal 

Naso lituratus orangespine 

unicornfish hangon/bwulaalay 

Naso tuberosus humpnose unicornfish NA 

Naso hexacanthus black tongue 

unicornfish NA 

Naso vlamingii bignose unicornfish NA 

Acanthuridae 

(Surgeonfishes) 

Naso annulatus whitemargin 

unicornfish NA 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-18 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Chamorro/Carolinian 

Name 

Naso brevirostris spotted unicornfish NA 

Naso caesius gray unicornfish NA 

Balistidae 

(Triggerfishes) Balistoides viridescens titan triggerfish NA 

Balistoides 

conspicillum clown triggerfish NA 

Balistapus undulatus orange striped 

triggerfish NA 

Melichthys vidua pinktail triggerfish NA 

Melichthys niger black triggerfish NA 

Selar 

crumenophthalmus Carangidae bigeye scad atulai/peti 

(Jacks) Decapterus macarellus mackerel scad NA 

Carcharhinus 

amblyrhynchos grey reef shark NA 

Carcharhinus 

albimarginatus silvertip shark NA 

Carcharhinus 

galapagensis Galapagos shark NA 

Carcharhinus 

melanopterus blacktip reef shark NA 

Carcharhinidae 

(Sharks) 

Triaenodon obesus whitetip reef shark NA 

Myripristis berndti bigscale soldierfish saksak/mweel 

Myripristis adusta bronze soldierfish sagamelon 

Myripristis murdjan blotcheye soldierfish sagamelon 

Myripristis amaena brick soldierfish sagamelon 

Myripristis pralinia scarlet soldierfish sagamelon 

Myripristis violacea violet soldierfish sagamelon 

Myripristis vittata whitetip soldierfish sagamelon 

Myripristis chryseres yellowfin soldierfish sagamelon 

Myripristis kuntee pearly soldierfish sagamelon 

Sargocentron 

caudimaculatum tailspot squirrelfish sagamelon 

Sargocentron diadema crown squirrelfish chalak 

Sargocentron tiere blue-lined squirrelfish sagsag/leet 

Sargocentron 

spiniferum 

saber or long jaw 

squirrelfish sisiok 

Holocentridae 

(Solderfish/ 

Squirrelfish 

Neoniphon spp. spotfin squirrelfish sagsag/Leet 

Kuhliidae 

(Flagtails) Kuhlia mugil barred flag-tail NA 

Kyphosidae Kyphosus biggibus rudderfish guili 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-19 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Chamorro/Carolinian 

Name 

(Rudderfish) Kyphosus cinerascens rudderfish guili/schpwul 

Kyphosus vaigienses rudderfish guilen puengi/reel 

Cheilinus chlorourus floral wrasse NA 

Cheilinus undulatus Napoleon wrasse tangison/maam 

Cheilinus trilobatus triple-tail wrasse lalacha mamate/ 

porou 

Cheilinus fasciatus harlequin tuskfish or 

red-breasted wrasse 

NA 

Oxycheilinus 

unifasciatus ring-tailed wrasse NA 

Xyrichtys pavo razor wrasse NA 

Xyrichtys aneitensis whitepatch wrasse NA 

Cheilio inermis cigar wrasse NA 

Hemigymnus 

melapterus blackeye thicklip NA 

Hemigymnus fasciatus barred thicklip NA 

Halichoeres 

trimaculatus three-spot wrasse NA 

Thalassoma purpureum surge wrasse NA 

Labridae 

(Wrasses) 

Hologynmosus doliatus longface wrasse NA 

Mulloidichthys spp. yellow goatfish NA 

Mulloidichthys 

vanicolensis yellowfin goatfish satmoneti/wichigh 

Mulloidichthys 

flavolineatus yellowstripe goatfish ti‘ao (juv.) satmoneti (adult) 

Parupeneus spp. banded goatfish NA 

Parupeneus barberinus dash-dot goatfish satmonetiyo/failighi 

Parupeneus bifasciatus doublebar goatfish satmoneti acho/ 

sungoongo 

Parupeneus ciliatus white-lined goatfish ti‘ao (juv.) satmoneti (adult) 

Parupeneus 

cyclostomas yellowsaddle goatfish ti‘ao (juv.) satmoneti (adult) 

Mullidae 

(Goatfishes) 

Parupeneus 

pleurostigma side-spot goatfish ti‘ao (juv.) satmoneti (adult) 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-20 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Chamorro/Carolinian 

Name 

Parupeneus 

multifaciatus multi-barred goatfish ti‘ao (juv.) satmoneti (adult) 

Upeneus arge band-tail goatfish NA 

Mugil cephalus striped mullet aguas (juv.) laiguan (adult) 

Moolgarda engeli Engel’s mullet aguas (juv.) laiguan (adult) Mugilidae 

(Mullets) 

Crenimugil crenilabis fringelip mullet aguas (juv.) laiguan (adult) 

Gymnothorax 

flavimarginatus 

yellowmargin moray 

eel NA 

Gymnothorax 

javanicus giant moray eel NA 

Muraenidae 

(Moray eels) 

Gymnothorax 

undulatus undulated moray eel NA 

Octopus cyanea octopus Octopodidae gamsun 

(Octopus) Octopus ornatus octopus gamsun 

Polynemidae Polydactylus sexfilis threadfin NA 

Heteropriacanthus 

cruentatus 

glasseye NA Pricanthidae 

(Bigeye) 

Priacanthus hamrur bigeye NA 

Bolbometopon 

muricatum 

humphead parrotfish atuhong/roow 

Scarus spp. parrotfish palakse/laggua 

Hipposcarus longiceps Pacific longnose 

parrotfish gualafi/oscha 

Scaridae 

(Parrotfishes) 

Calotomus carolinus stareye parrotfish palaksin chaguan 

Scombridae Gymnosarda unicolor dogtooth tuna white tuna/ayul 

Siganus aregentus forktail rabbitfish hiting/manahok/llegh 

Siganus guttatus golden rabbitfish hiting 

Siganus punctatissimus gold-spot rabbitfish hiting galagu 

Siganus spinus scribbled rabbitfish hiting/sesyon/palawa 

Siganidae 

(Rabbitfish) 

Siganus vermiculatus vermiculate rabbitfish hiting 

Sphyraena helleri Heller’s barracuda NA Sphyraenidae 

(Barracuda) Sphyraena barracuda great barracuda NA 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-21 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Chamorro/Carolinian 

Name 

Turbinidae 

(turban /green 

snails 

Turbo spp. green snails 

turban shells aliling pulan/aliling tulompu 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name English Common Name Chamorro/Carolinian Name 

Labridae 

wrasses - (those species not listed as 

Currently Harvested Coral Reef 

Taxa (CHCRT) 

Carcharhinidae 

Sphyrnidae 

sharks 

Dasyatididae 

Myliobatidae rays and skates 

Serrandiae 

groupers 

(those species not listed as CHCRT 

or Bottomfish Management Unit 

Species (BMUS) 

Carangidae 

jacks and scads 

(those species not listed as CHCRT 

or BMUS) 

Holocentridae solderfishes and squirrelfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Mullidae goatfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Acanthuridae surgeonfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Ephippidae batfishes 

Monodactylidae monos 

Haemulidae sweetlips NA 

Echeneidae remoras NA 

Malacanthidae tilefishes NA 

Lethrinidae emperors 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Pseudochromidae dottybacks 

Plesiopidae prettyfins 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-22 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name English Common Name Chamorro/Carolinian Name 

Muraenidae 

Chlopsidae 

Congridae 

Ophichthidae 

eels 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) NA 

Apogonidae cardinalfishes NA 

Zanclidae moorish Idols NA 

Aulostomus chinensis trumpetfish NA 

Fistularia commersoni cornetfish NA 

Chaetodontidae butterfly fishes NA 

Pomacanthidae angelfishes NA 

Pomacentridae damselfishes NA 

Scorpaenidae scorpionfishes NA 

Caracanthidae coral crouchers NA 

Anomalopidae flashlightfishes NA 

Clupeidae herrings NA 

Engraulidae anchovies NA 

Gobiidae gobies NA 

Blenniidae blennies NA 

Sphyraenidae barracudas 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) NA 

Lutjanidae 

snappers 

(those species not listed as CHCRT 

or BMUS) 

NA 

Balistidae trigger fishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) NA 

Siganidae rabbitfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) NA 

Pinguipedidae sandperches NA 

Gymnosarda unicolor dog tooth tuna NA 

Kyphosidae rudderfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) NA 

Bothidae 

Soleidae flounders and Soles NA 

Ostraciidae trunkfishes NA 

Caesionidae fusiliers NA 

Cirrhitidae hawkfishes NA 

Antennariidae frogfishes NA 

Syngnathidae pipefishes and seahorses NA 

Tetradontidae puffer fishes and porcupine fishes NA 

Heliopora blue corals NA 

Tubipora Organpipe corals NA 

Azooxanthellates ahermatypic corals NA 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-23 

Mariana Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name English Common Name Chamorro/Carolinian Name 

Echinoderms sea cucumbers and sea urchins NA 

Mollusca (those species not listed as CHCRT) NA 

Gastropoda sea snails NA 

Trochus spp. NA 

Opistobranches sea slugs NA 

Pinctada margaritifera black-lipped pearl oyster NA 

Tridacnidae giant clam NA 

Other Bivalves other clams NA 

Fungiidae mushroom corals NA 

small and large coral polyps NA 

Millepora fire corals NA 

soft corals and gorgonians NA 

Actinaria anemones NA 

Zoanthinaria soft zoanthid corals NA 

Hydrozoans and 

Bryzoans NA 

Tunicates sea squirts NA 

Porifera sponges NA 

Cephalopods NA 

Crustaceans 

lobsters, shrimps/mantis shrimps, 

true crabs and hermit crabs (Those 

species not listed as CMUS) 

NA 

Stylasteridae lace corals NA 

Solanderidae hydroid corals NA 

Algae aeaweed NA 

Annelids segmented worms NA 

Live rock NA 

All other coral reef ecosystem management unit species that are marine plants, invertebrates, and 

fishes that are not listed in the preceding tables or are not bottomfish management unit species, 

crustacean management unit species, Pacific pelagic management unit species, precious coral or 

seamount groundfish. 

Table A-9: Alternative 2B (Preferred), Hawaii Archipelago 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS) 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Local or Hawaiian Name 

Aphareus rutilans silver jaw jobfish lehi 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-24 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Local or Hawaiian Name 

Aprion virescens gray jobfish uku 

Caranx ignobilis giant trevally white papio/ulua au kea 

Caranx lugubris black jack ulua la’uli 

Epinephelus quernus sea bass hāpu‘upu‘u 

Etelis carbunculus red snapper ehu 

Etelis coruscans longtail snapper onaga or ‘ula‘ula koa‘e 

Lutjanus kasmira blue stripe snapper ta‘ape 

Pristipomoides auricilla yellowtail snapper kalekale 

Pristipomoides filamentosus pink snapper ‘ōpakapaka 

Pristipomoides seiboldii pink snapper kalekale 

Pristipomoides zonatus snapper gindai 

Pseudocaranx dentex thicklip trevally pig ulua, butaguchi 

Seriola dumerili amberjack kahala 

Beryx splendens alfonsin NA 

Pseudopentaceros 

richardsoni armorhead NA 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Crustacean Management Unit Species (CMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Local Name 

Panulirus marginatus spiny lobster ula 

Panulirus penicillatus spiny lobster ula 

Family Scyllaridae slipper lobster ula papapa 

Ranina ranina Kona crab papa’i kua loa 

Heterocarpus spp. deepwater shrimp NA 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-25 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Precious Corals Management Unit Species (PC MUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name Local Name 

Corallium secundum pink coral 

(also called red coral) NA 

Corallium regale pink coral 

(also called red coral) NA 

Corallium laauense pink coral 

(also called red coral) NA 

Gerardia spp. gold coral NA 

Narella spp. gold coral NA 

Lepidisis olapa bamboo coral NA 

Antipathes dichotoma black coral NA 

Antipathes grandis black coral NA 

Antipathes ulex black coral NA 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Reef Taxa or CHRT) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name Local Name 

Acanthurus 

olivaceus orange-spot surgeonfish na‘ena‘e 

Acanthurus 

xanthopterus yellowfin surgeonfish pualu 

Acanthurus 

triostegus convict tang manini 

Acanthurus 

dussumieri eye-striped surgeonfish palani 

Acanthurus nigroris blue-lined surgeon maiko 

Acanthurus 

leucopareius whitebar surgeonfish maiko or maikoiko 

Acanthurus

nigricans whitecheek surgeonfish NA 

Acanthurus guttatus white-spotted 

surgeonfish ‘api 

Acanthuridae 

(Surgeonfishes) 

Acanthurus blochii ringtail surgeonfish pualu 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-26 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Reef Taxa or CHRT) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name Local Name 

Acanthurus

nigrofuscus brown surgeonfish mai‘i‘i 

Ctenochaetus 

strigosus yellow-eyed surgeonfish kole 

Ctenochaetus 

striatus striped bristletooth NA 

Naso unicornus bluespine unicornfish kala 

Naso lituratus orangespine unicornfish kalalei or umaumalei 

Naso hexacanthus black tongue 

unicornfish kala holo 

Naso annulatus white margin 

unicornfish kala 

Naso brevirostris spotted unicornfish kala lolo 

Naso caesius gray unicornfish NA 

Zebrasoma 

flavescens yellow tang lau‘ipala 

Melichthys vidua pinktail triggerfish humuhumu hi‘ukole 

Melichthys niger black triggerfish humuhumu ‘ele‘ele 

Rhinecanthus 

aculeatus picassofish humuhumu nukunuku 

apua‘a 

Balistidae 

(Triggerfish) 

Sufflamen 

fraenatum bridled triggerfish NA 

Selar 

crumenophthalmus bigeye scad akule or hahalu Carangidae 

(Jacks) 

Decapterus 

macarellus mackerel scad ‘opelu or ‘opelu mama 

Carcharhinus 

amblyrhynchos grey reef shark manō

Carcharhinus 

galapagensis Galapagos shark manō

Carcharhinus 

melanopterus blacktip reef shark manō

Carcharhinidae 

(Sharks) 

Triaenodon obesus whitetip reef shark manō lalakea 

Myripristis berndti bigscale soldierfish menpachi or ‘u‘u 

Myripristis amaena brick soldierfish menpachi or ‘u‘u 

Myripristis 

chryseres yellowfin soldierfish menpachi or ‘u‘u 

Holocentridae 

(Solderfish/ 

Squirrelfish 

Myripristis kuntee pearly soldierfish menpachi or ‘u‘u 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-27 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Reef Taxa or CHRT) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name Local Name 

Sargocentron 

microstoma file-lined squirrelfish ‘ala‘ihi 

Sargocentron 

diadema crown squirrelfish ‘ala‘ihi 

Sargocentron 

punctatissimum peppered squirrelfish ‘ala‘ihi 

Sargocentron tiere blue-lined squirrelfish ‘ala‘ihi 

Sargocentron 

xantherythrum hawaiian squirrelfish ‘ala‘ihi 

Sargocentron 

spiniferum 

saber or long jaw 

squirrelfish ‘ala‘ihi 

Neoniphon spp. spotfin squirrelfish ‘ala‘ihi 

Kuhliidae 

(Flagtails) Kuhlia sandvicensis Hawaiian flag-tail ‘aholehole 

Kyphosus biggibus rudderfish nenue 

Kyphosus 

cinerascens Kyphosidae rudderfish nenue 

(Rudderfish) Kyphosus vaigiensis rudderfish nenue 

Bodianus 

bilunulatus saddleback hogfish ‘a‘awa 

Oxycheilinus 

unifasciatus ring-tailed wrasse po‘ou 

Xyrichtys pavo razor wrasse laenihi or nabeta 

Cheilio inermis cigar wrasse kupoupou 

Thalassoma 

purpureum surge wrasse ho‘u 

Thalassoma 

quinquevittatum red ribbon wrasse NA 

Thalassoma 

lutescens sunset wrasse NA 

Labridae 

(Wrasses) 

Novaculichthys 

taeniourus 

rockmover wrasse NA 

Mulloidichthys spp. yellow goatfish weke 

Mulloidichthys 

pfleugeri orange goatfish weke nono 

Mullidae 

(Goatfishes) 

Mulloidichthys 

vanicolensis yellowfin goatfish weke‘ula 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-28 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Reef Taxa or CHRT) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name Local Name 

Mulloidichthys 

flavolineatus yellowstripe goatfish 

weke‘a or 

weke a‘a 

Parupeneus spp. banded goatfish kumu or moano 

Parupeneus 

bifasciatus doublebar goatfish munu 

Parupeneus 

cyclostomas yellowsaddle goatfish moano kea or moano kale 

Parupeneus 

pleurostigma side-spot goatfish malu 

Parupeneus 

multifaciatus multi-barred goatfish moano 

Upeneus arge band-tail goatfish weke pueo 

Mugilidae Mugil cephalus stripped mullet ‘ama‘ama 

(Mullets) Neomyxus leuciscus false mullet uouoa 

Muraenidae 

(Moray eels) 

Gymnothorax 

flavimarginatus 

yellow margin moray 

eel puhi paka 

Gymnothorax 

javanicus giant moray eel puhi 

Gymnothorax 

undulatus undulated moray eel puhi laumilo 

Muraenidae 

Enchelycore 

pardalis dragon eel puhi 

Octopus cyanea octopus he‘e mauli or tako Octopodidae 

(Octopus) Octopus ornatus octopus he‘e or tako 

Polynemidae Polydactylus sexfilis threadfin moi 

Priacanthidae 

(Big-eyes) 

Heteropriacanthus 

cruentatus 

glasseye ‘aweoweo 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-29 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species (CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Reef Taxa or CHRT) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common 

Name Local Name 

Priacanthus hamrur bigeye ‘aweoweo 

Scarus spp. parrotfish uhu or palukaluka 

Scaridae 

(Parrotfish) 

Calotomus 

carolinus stareye parrotfish panuhunuhu 

Sphyraena helleri Heller’s barracuda kawele‘a or kaku 

Sphyraenidae 

(Barracuda) Sphyraena 

barracuda great barracuda kaku 

Turbinidae Turbo spp. green snails 

turban shells NA 

Zanclidae Zanclus cornutus moorish idol

kihikihi 

Chaetodon auriga butterflyfish kikakapu 

Chaetodontidae Chaetodon lunula raccoon butterflyfish kikakapu 

Chaetodon 

ephippium saddleback butterflyfish kikakapu 

Sabellidae featherduster worm NA 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species 

(CREMUS) (Potentially Harvested Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name English Common Name Local Name 

Labridae 

wrasses 

(those species not listed as 

Currently Harvested Coral 

Reef Taxa or CHCRT) 

Hinalea 

Carcharhinidae 

Sphyrnidae 

sharks 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

Manō

Dasyatididae 

Myliobatidae rays and skates Hihimanu 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-30 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species 

(CREMUS) (Potentially Harvested Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name English Common Name Local Name 

Serrandiae 

groupers, seabass 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT or Bottomfish 

Management Unit Species or 

BMUS) 

roi, hapu’upu’u 

Malacanthidae tilefishes NA 

Carangidae 

jacks and scads 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT or in BMUS) 

dobe, kagami, pa‘opa‘o, 

papa, omaka, ulua, 

Holocentridae 

solderfishes and 

squirrelfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

‘u‘u 

Mullidae 

goatfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

weke, moano, kumu 

Acanthuridae 

surgeonfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

na’ena’e, maikoiko 

Echeneidae remoras NA 

Muraenidae 

Congridae 

Ophichthidae 

eels 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

Puhi 

Apogonidae cardinalfishes ‘upapalu 

Clupeidae herrings NA 

Engraulidae anchovies Nehu 

Caracanthidae coral crouchers NA 

Gobiidae gobies ‘o‘opu 

Lutjanidae 

snappers 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT or in BMUS) 

to’au 

Aulostomus chinensis trumpetfish nunu 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-31 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species 

(CREMUS) (Potentially Harvested Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name English Common Name Local Name 

Fistularia commersoni cornetfish nunu peke 

Zanclidae moorish idols kihikihi 

Chaetodontidae butterflyfishes kikakapu 

Pomacanthidae angelfishes NA 

Pomacentridae damselfishes mamo 

Scorpaenidae scorpionfishes, lionfishes nohu, okoze 

Blenniidae blennies pa o’o 

Sphyraenidae 

barracudas 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

kaku 

Pinguipedidae sandperches NA 

Bothidae 

Soleidae 

Pleurnectidae 

flounders and soles paki‘i 

Ostraciidae trunkfishes makukana 

Balistidae 

trigger fishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

humu humu 

Kyphosidae 

rudderfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

nenue 

Cirrhitidae 

hawkfishes 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

po‘opa‘a 

Tetradontidae puffer fishes and porcupine 

fishes ‘o‘opu hue or fugu 

Antennariidae frogfishes NA 

Syngnathidae pipefishes and seahorses NA 

Echinoderms sea cucumbers and sea 

urchins namako, lole, wana 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-32 

Hawaii Archipelago FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species 

(CREMUS) (Potentially Harvested Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name English Common Name Local Name 

Mollusca (those species not listed as 

CHCRT) NA 

Azooxanthellates ahermatypic corals ko‘a

Fungiidae mushroom corals ko‘a

small and large coral polyps ko‘a

soft corals and gorgonians NA 

Actinaria anemones NA 

Zoanthinaria soft zoanthid corals NA 

Solanderidae hydroid corals NA 

Stylasteridae lace corals ko‘a 

Crustaceans 

lobsters, shrimps, 

mantis shrimps, true crabs 

and hermit crabs 

(those species not listed as 

CMUS) 

ula, a‘ama, mo‘ala, ‘alakuma 

Hydrozoans and Bryzoans NA 

Pinctada margaritifera Black-lipped pearl oyster NA 

Other Bivalves other clams NA 

Tunicates sea squirts NA 

Porifera sponges NA 

Cephalopods octopi tako, he‘e 

Gastropoda sea snails NA 

Opistobranches sea slugs NA 

Algae seaweed limu 

Live rock NA 

Annelids 

segmented worms 

(those species not listed as 

CHCRT) 

NA 

All other coral reef ecosystem management unit species that are marine plants, 

invertebrates, and fishes that are not listed in the preceding tables or are not bottomfish 

management unit species, crustacean management unit species, Pacific pelagic 

management unit species, precious coral or seamount groundfish. 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-33 

Table A-10: Alternative 2B (Preferred), Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Management Unit Species (MUS) 

 

PRIA FEP Bottomfish Management Unit Species 

(BMUS)

Scientific Name English Common Name 

Aphareus rutilans silver jaw jobfish 

Caranx ignobilis giant trevally 

Caranx lugubris black jack 

Epinephelus fasciatus blacktip grouper 

Epinephelus quernus sea bass 

Etelis carbunculus red snapper 

Etelis coruscans longtail snapper 

Lethrinus rubrioperculatus redgill emperor 

Pristipomoides auricilla yellowtail snapper 

Pristipomoides filamentosus pink snapper 

Pristipomoides seiboldii pink snapper 

Variola louti lunartail grouper 

 

PRIA FEP Crustacean Management Unit Species 

(CMUS)

Scientific Name English Common Name 

Panulirus penicillatus spiny lobster 

Family Scyllaridae slipper lobster 

Ranina ranina Kona crab 

Heterocarpus spp. deepwater shrimp 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-34 

PRIA FEP Precious Corals Management Unit Species 

(PC MUS) 

Scientific Name English Common Name 

Corallium secundum pink coral (also called red 

coral) 

Corallium regale

pink coral (also called red 

coral) 

Corallium laauense

pink coral (also called red 

coral) 

Gerardia spp. gold coral 

Narella spp. gold coral 

Lepidisis olapa bamboo coral 

Antipathes dichotoma black coral 

Antipathes grandis black coral 

Antipathes ulex black coral 

PRIA FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species 

(CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa or CHCRT) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common Name 

Acanthurus olivaceus orange-spot surgeonfish 

Acanthurus xanthopterus yellowfin surgeonfish 

Acanthurus triostegus convict tang 

Acanthurus dussumieri eye-striped surgeonfish 

Acanthurus nigroris blue-lined surgeon 

Acanthurus leucopareius whitebar surgeonfish 

Acanthurus lineatus blue-banded surgeonfish 

Acanthurus nigricauda blackstreak surgeonfish 

Acanthurus nigricans whitecheek surgeonfish 

Acanthuridae 

(Surgeonfishes) 

Acanthurus guttatus white-spotted surgeonfish 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-35 

PRIA FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species 

(CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa or CHCRT) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common Name 

Acanthurus blochii ringtail surgeonfish 

Acanthurus nigrofuscus brown surgeonfish 

Ctenochaetus strigosus yellow-eyed surgeonfish 

Ctenochaetus striatus striped bristletooth 

Ctenochaetus binotatus twospot bristletooth 

Zebrasoma flavescens yellow tang

Naso unicornus bluespine unicornfish 

Naso lituratus orangespine unicornfish 

Naso hexacanthus black tongue unicornfish 

Naso vlamingii bignose unicornfish 

Naso annulatus white margin unicornfish 

Naso brevirostris spotted unicornfish 

Cheilinus undulatus Napoleon wrasse 

Cheilinus trilobatus triple-tail wrasse 

Cheilinus chlorourus floral wrasse 

Oxycheilinus unifasciatus ring-tailed wrasse 

Oxycheilinus diagrammus bandcheek wrasse 

Hemigymnus fasciatus barred thicklip 

Halichoeres trimaculatus three-spot wrasse 

Thalassoma quinquevittatum red ribbon wrasse 

Labridae 

(Wrasses) 

Thalassoma lutescens sunset wrasse 

Mulloidichthys spp. yellow goatfish 

Mulloidichthys pfleugeri orange goatfish 

Mulloidichthys flavolineatus yellow stripe goatfish 

Parupeneus spp. banded goatfish 

Parupeneus barberinus dash-dot goatfish 

Mullidae 

(Goatfishes) 

Parupeneus cyclostomas yellowsaddle goatfish 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-36 

PRIA FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Species 

(CREMUS) 

(Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa or CHCRT) 

Family Name Scientific Name English Common Name 

Parupeneus multifaciatus multi-barred goatfish 

Upeneus arge band-tail goatfish 

Crenimugil crenilabis fringelip mullet 

Moolgarda engeli Engel’s mullet 

Mugilidae 

(Mullets) 

Neomyxus leuciscus false mullet 

Gymnothorax flavimarginatus yellow margin moray eel 

Gymnothorax javanicus giant moray eel 

Muraenidae 

(Moray eels) 

Gymnothorax undulatus undulated moray eel 

Octopodidae Octopus cyanea octopus 

Octopus ornatus octopus 

Pricanthidae 

(Bigeye) Heteropriacanthus cruentatus glasseye 

Bolbometopon muricatum humphead parrotfish 

Scarus spp. parrotfish 

Hipposcarus longiceps pacific longnose parrotfish 

Scaridae 

(Parrotfishes) 

Calotomus carolinus stareye parrotfish 

Scombridae Gymnosarda unicolor dogtooth tuna 

Sphyraenidae 

(Barracuda) Sphyraena barracuda great barracuda 

PRIA FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name 

(Family) English Common Name 

Labridae wrasses (those species not listed as Currently 

Harvested Coral Reef Taxa or CHCRT) 

Carcharhinidae 

Sphyrnidae 

sharks 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Myliobatidae 

Mobulidae rays and skates 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-37 

PRIA FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name 

(Family) English Common Name 

Serrandiae 

groupers 

(those species not listed as CHCRT or as 

Bottomfish Management Unit Species or 

BMUS) 

Carangidae 

jacks and scads 

(those species not listed as CHCRT or as 

BMUS) 

Holocentridae solderfishes and squirrelfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Mullidae goatfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Ephippidae batfishes 

Haemulidae sweetlips 

Echeneidae remoras 

Malacanthidae tilefishes 

Pseudochromidae dottybacks 

Plesiopidae prettyfins 

Acanthuridae surgeonfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Lethrinidae emperors (those species not listed as CHCRT 

or as BMUS) 

Clupeidae Herrings 

Gobiidae Gobies 

Lutjanidae 

snappers 

(those species not listed as CHCRT or as 

BMUS) 

Balistidae trigger fishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-38 

PRIA FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name 

(Family) English Common Name 

Siganidae 

rabbitfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Muraenidae 

Chlopsidae 

Congridae 

Ophichthidae 

eels 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Apogonidae cardinalfishes 

Zanclidae moorish idols 

Chaetodontidae butterfly fishes 

Pomacanthidae angelfishes 

Pomacentridae damselfishes 

Scorpaenidae scorpionfishes 

Blenniidae blennies 

Sphyraenidae 

barracudas 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Pinguipedidae sandperches 

Kyphosidae 

rudderfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Caesionidae fusiliers 

Cirrhitidae 

hawkfishes 

(those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Antennariidae frogfishes 

Syngnathidae pipefishes and seahorses 

Bothidae flounders and soles 

Ostraciidae trunkfishes 

Tetradontidae puffer fishes and porcupine fishes 

Aulostomus chinensis trumpetfish 

Fistularia commersoni cornetfish 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-39 

PRIA FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name 

(Family) English Common Name 

Heliopora blue corals 

Tubipora organpipe corals 

Azooxanthellates ahermatypic corals 

Fungiidae mushroom corals 

small and large coral polyps 

Millepora fire corals 

soft corals and gorgonians 

Actinaria anemones 

Zoanthinaria soft zoanthid corals 

Hydrozoans and Bryzoans 

Tunicates sea squirts 

Echinoderms sea cucumbers and sea urchins 

Mollusca (those species not listed as CHCRT) 

Gastropoda sea snails 

Trochus spp. top shells, turban shell 

Opistobranches sea slugs 

Pinctada margaritifera black-lipped pearl oyster 

Tridacnidae giant clam 

Other Bivalves other clams 

Cephalopods 

Crustaceans lobsters, shrimps/mantis shrimps, true crabs 

and hermit crabs (those not listed as CMUS) 

Porifera sponges 

Stylasteridae lace corals 

Solanderidae hydroid corals 

Annelids segmented worms 

Algae seaweed 
FPEIS Appendix A. Page A-40 

PRIA FEP Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS (CREMUS) 

(Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa)

Scientific Name 

(Family) English Common Name 

Live rock 

All other coral reef ecosystem management unit species that are marine plants, 

invertebrates, and fishes that are not listed in the preceding tables or are not 

bottomfish management unit species, crustacean management unit species, Pacific 

pelagic management unit species, precious coral or seamount groundfish. 

Table-11: Alternative 2B (Preferred), Pacific Pelagics Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) 

Management Unit Species (MUS) 

Pacific Pelagic FEP Pelagic Management Unit Species (PMUS) 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Scientific Name English Common 

Name 

Coryphaena spp. mahimahi 

(dolphinfishes) 

Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark 

Acanthocybium 

solandri 

wahoo Isurus paucus longfin mako shark 

Makaira mazara: 

M. indica 

Indo-Pacific blue 

marlin, black marlin 

Lamna ditropis salmon shark 

Tetrapturus 

audax 

striped marlin Thunnus alalunga albacore 

Tetrapturs 

angustirostris 

shortbill spearfish Thunnus obesus bigeye tuna 

Xiphias gladius swordfish Thunnus albacares yellowfin tuna 

Istiophorus 

platypterus 

sailfish Thunnus thynnus northern bluefin tuna 

Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher 

shark 

Katsuwonus pelamis skipjack tuna 

Alopias 

superciliousus 

bigeye thresher shark Euthynnus affinis kawakawa 

Alopias vulpinus common thresher 

shark 

Lampris spp. moonfish 

Carcharhinus 

falciformis 

silky shark Gempylidae oilfish family 

Carcharhinus 

longimanus 

oceanic whitetip 

shark 

 Bramidae pomfret family 

Prionace glauca blue shark Auxis spp., Scomber 

spp., Allothunus spp. 

other tuna relatives 
Appendix B. 

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations from the 

Ecosystem Science and Management Planning Workshop

April 2005 
This page left blank intentionally.
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-1 

APPENDIX B - Summary Conclusions and Recommendations from the 

Ecosystem Science and Management Planning Workshop 

Development of Ecosystem-based Approaches to Marine Resource Management in the 

Western Pacific Region 

Convened by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

April 18-22, 2005

Much has been said and written in recent years about the need for application of ecosystem 

principles to the management of U.S. fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). While the topic of ecosystem 

principles has received increased attention recently in both the U.S. Commission on Ocean 

Policy and the Pew Ocean Commission, it has been the subject of discussions for several years 

previously. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) could be considered a 

legal embodiment of the need to consider how federal actions would affect the environmental 

resources (hence ecosystem-based principles) in which they were carried out. 

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, one of eight regional fishery 

management councils, is moving progressively to apply ecosystem principles in its fishery 

management plans. Recognizing that the Council has limited experience and tools for this work, 

and further recognizing broad, multi-Council interest in this arena, the Council has embarked on 

a series of workshops to exchange information and learn from outside experiences in resource 

management based on or integrating ecosystem principles into the planning and management 

process. This workshop was held April 18-22, 2005, at Council offices in Honolulu, Hawaii. The 

theme of this workshop was the science and data needs to support the application of ecosystem 

principles into planning and management. Experts from throughout the nation and the Pacific 

were invited to make presentations and engage in discussions about their work, experiences, and 

views on these topics. This report presents the results of the workshop. 

Introduction 

Fishery management over the past decade has been moving away from developing singlespecies- and stock-policies, and towards considering fishery impacts on aquatic ecosystems more 

holistically. This shift was evident in the 1996 reauthorization of the US Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which incorporated many 

elements of the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). This included a requirement for 

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) to incorporate considerations of essential fish habitat, which 

was defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or 

growth to maturity.” FMPs are required to “describe and identify essential fish habitat for the 

fishery, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and 

identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat.” The 1996 

Magnuson-Stevens Act also contained a new National Standard (NS9) for by-catch, which was 

defined as “fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, 

and includes economic discards and regulatory discards.” Conservation and management 
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-2 

measures in FMPs were required to “minimize by-catch and to the extent by-catch cannot be 

avoided, minimize the mortality of such by-catch.” 

Moreover, the 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens Act also included the establishment of 

an Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel to expand the application of ecosystem principles in 

fishery conservation and management activities. Following the directives of Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, this Panel completed a report to Congress in 1999, entitled Ecosystem-Based Fishery 

Management. Further, the 2003 Pew Ocean Commission and the 2004 U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy both advised NOAA Fisheries to adopt ecosystem approaches to management. 

From the foregoing it was clear that the next reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act would 

likely include a requirement for the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) to prepare 

Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs). Recognizing this momentum towards FEPs, the Western 

Pacific Council convened a workshop in April 2005 to begin the preparations for moving from 

FMPs to FEPs. 

The Workshop was held in Honolulu, April 18-22, 2005, at the Council offices. The three basic 

themes for the Workshop were Data, Models, and Indicators, recognizing that a later workshop 

would address social and economic policy and human organization issues. 

Objective, tasks and approach 

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council is moving incrementally to apply 

ecosystem principles in its fishery management plans. Recognizing its limited experience and 

tools in ecosystem-based management approaches, the Council embarked on a series of three 

workshops to exchange information and learn from outside expertise. The present report 

summarizes the first workshop, held April 18-22, 2005, on the topic of the science and data 

needs to support ecosystem-based management approaches. The present conclusions and 

recommendations attempts to summarize the main points and issues presented in this report. 

The objective of the Workshop was to identify science requirements to support EcosystemBased Approaches (EBA) for marine resource management in the Western Pacific Region. The 

tasks assigned to the Workshop were: 

1. Review state-of-the-art ecosystem models applied to marine resource management and 

their application in governance systems; 

2. Identify management requirements in the Western Pacific Region; 

3. Identify the best suite of quantitative ecosystem indicators and associated tradeoffs to 

support management requirements in the Western Pacific Region; 

4. Within the confines of existing mandates (e.g., Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act), identify the most effective short-term application of EBA to marine 

resource management that can be implemented based on current data (and in this context, 

address whether the precautionary approach has a role); 

5. Identify new data or models that would be required to advance EBA to marine resource 

management in the Western Pacific Region; and 

6. Identify changes in policy or science administration that would be required to more 

effectively implement EBA to marine resource management. 
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-3 

The approach taken in the present workshop was to separate the general topic into three themes: 

data, models and indicators. The workshop utilized a combination approach of alternating 

plenary presentations/discussions lead by an invited expert panel with breakout working groups 

(by theme) reporting back to plenary for further discussion. 

Principally, the foundation of ecosystem-based fishery management is the application of 

conservative and precautionary approaches for the major targeted stocks or fisheries in a 

designated region. However, added to this base are considerations of the impacts of fisheries on 

non-target species, effects of fishing on habitats supporting production and ecosystem functions, 

predator-prey dynamics, and relationships between the biota and the environment. It is this 

second added component that differentiates ecosystem-based management approaches from the 

more traditional, fisheries management approaches generally focused on maximizing yield or 

value from targeted stocks on a more or less single-species or targeted multi-species group basis 

(e.g., Hawaiian bottomfish). Given the complexity of marine ecosystems, relationships between 

species, as well as between species and their environment are likely complex and complicated, 

and often little understood or difficult to untangle. The resultant high levels of uncertainty place 

a premium on conservative and precautionary approaches to exploitation in an ecosystem-based 

management setting. 

A problem managers have encountered in implementing an ecosystem-based approach to 

management is the lack of a ‘road map’ on how to integrate the various components of an 

ecosystem approach into a clear operational governance system. In an integrated approach, the 

governance system examines a suite of information to develop management measures which 

achieve various strategic goals. This requires taking into account numerous perspectives and 

desired outcomes from a variety of stakeholders, including those representing non-extractive 

interests and ecosystem services. An integrated approach must also rely on a comprehensive 

ecosystem observing system to collect data at various spatial and temporal scales, and a 

management decision support system to synthesize the information and develop status indicators 

for individual ecosystem components, forecast status and trends, and evaluate the biological, 

social and economical effects of policy choices. 

The literature on ecosystem-based approaches suggests that there are eight broad categories of 

operational objectives that should be considered in developing fishery ecosystem plans: 

1) Conserving and managing the species; 

2) Minimizing by-catch; 

3) Managing tradeoffs; 

4) Account for feedback effects; 

5) Establish appropriate ecosystem boundaries; 

6) Maintain ecosystem productivity and balance ecosystem structure; 

7) Account for climate variability; and 

8) Use adaptive approaches to management. 

Key points 
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-4 

During the discussions and plenary sessions several key points were raised repeatedly, and are 

summarized here: 

1) Management/policy issues need to be clearly and precisely stated prior to data collection 

or modeling/analyses being initiated; 

2) Model or analysis choice must be driven firstly by management/policy issues, and 

secondly by available or obtainable data; 

3) Adaptive management experiments, involving deliberate spatial comparisons of policy 

options (such as, e.g., MPAs) are of crucial importance for developing and implementing 

ecosystem-based management approaches; 

4) Models cannot and should not determine the management decision, which, by its very 

nature, is choice driven and influenced by tradeoffs. Models are only intellectual devices 

to help scientists and managers think about problems and possible solutions; 

5) Some data collection efforts, while labeled as ecosystem-based, may not be appropriately 

scaled (in terms of spatio-temporal sampling) or may not target useful variables or 

parameters for ecosystem-based fisheries management. Such research and monitoring 

efforts need to be better targeted and focused towards clearly identified 

management/policy issues, if the data collections are funded for and based on ecosystembased management needs; 

6) New or different data may need to be collected, depending on clearly identified 

management/policy issues, and the associated analysis/modeling needs. Such data 

activities should include data ‘mining’ and data recovery from old and/or unusual sources 

(e.g., research theses, unpublished grey literature, old print and electronic media etc.); 

and 

7) Concerted efforts are required to reduce or overcome agency specific disagreements (e.g., 

jurisdictional boundaries) and miscommunication in an integrative approach to move 

towards system management as a centralized objective. It may be prudent to examine 

approaches taken and lessons learned elsewhere, e.g., the Australian experiences with 

managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and World Heritage Area, with its joint 

state-federal jurisdiction and management agreement. 

Recommendations 

Several recommendations can be extracted from the discussions and working group outcomes 

as presented in this report: 

1) Clearly define and articulate management/policy issues and questions along lines of 

urgency and identified needs; 

2) Assign a centralized resource entity with sufficient seniority and appropriate financial 

and human resources to establish and maintain a centralized data reference and contact 

point (the “who, what, where and how” of data); 

3) Review and evaluate all currently available data and data collection schemes (biological, 

social, economic etc.), and initiate and maintain data ‘mining’ and recovery activities; 

4) Undertake initial assessments and analyses of available data, based on key 

management/policy issues identified by management and stakeholders. This is primarily 
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-5 

aimed at identifying strengths and weaknesses of current data and data collection 

programs, and pointing out obvious data gaps; 

5) Identify and initiate adaptive management experiments at ecosystem scale; 

6) Ensure that data collection and models/analyses for ecosystem-based management are 

coordinated with and driven by clearly identified management needs and issues; 

7) Encourage keeping all models/analyses at the most ‘simple’ level possible, i.e., avoid 

temptation to build large, exceedingly complex models; 

8) Ensure adequate support and resources for clearly identified ecosystem-scale monitoring, 

research and modeling/analytical investigations; and 

9) Evaluate a suite of indicators (both existing fishery-based, as well as new and emerging 

ecosystem-based) in an evolving and adaptive process. 

Overall, it was consistently emphasized that clear management objectives need to be outlined 

and policy issues identified before appropriate and suitable models/analyses and indicators can 

be proposed or developed, which in turn will be influenced by currently available data, and will 

determine future data needs. Thus, a key recommendation was that specific management issues 

are identified and clearly delineated, and potentially available management and policy tools and 

options clarified prior to analytical options and data needs being decided and implemented. 

Simultaneously, a key recommendation was that a comprehensive data availability inventory 

needs to be undertaken, incorporating all quantitative and qualitative information available 

(ideally combining scientific as well as socio-economic data). This data inventory should be 

centralized, freely available and comprehensive. As examples of first steps in this direction one 

can consider WPacFIN’s activities with respect to parts of fishery-dependent data, and the UH’s 

Pelagic Fisheries Research Program’s ‘atlas’ activities for documenting available information 

and oceanographic models. This endeavor should be a permanent feature for the entire Western 

Pacific region’s ecosystem-based approach to science and management, and be lead by a 

dedicated and appropriately resourced data inventory entity of significant seniority (a centralized 

‘resource contact’ responsible for the “who owns it, what exists, where is it, how can it be used” 

of data), and who facilitates utilization of the wide array of existing and likely future data. This 

inventory should include all data types, including qualitative information sources. In the initial 

phase, this data inventory entity should facilitate the establishment of a Data Needs Working 

Group for research in ecosystem-based approaches for fisheries management. Subsequently, 

potential useful models or analytical approaches can be outlined driven by management and 

policy issues and needs, but reflective of currently available data. Thereafter, additional future 

data needs can be identified. It should be noted that much of the data currently available were not 

initially collected under ecosystem-based management considerations or tied to any specific 

management issue of objective, and hence the utility of the information for such an application 

has not been determined for all data. These aspects should be considered as part of any data 

inventory initiative. 

With regards to data needs, the utility of data ‘mining’ and data recovery from unusual sources 

and old media was also raised as an issue of concern. Substantial resources have been invested in 

the past to collect a wide range of data, both quantitative and qualitative in the scientific as well 

as socio-economic fields. Yet, much of these data were only utilized for a narrow (e.g., graduate 

research thesis), or at the time important aspect, and only exist in grey literature with limited 
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-6 

print runs, or on old media. It has been shown that recovering such ‘old’ data can make 

significant contributions to science, and be of renewed interest as historic baselines for current 

and future ecosystem-based science and management1

. Thus a recommendation was that data 

recovery and ‘mining’ activities should form an integral part of the data inventory activities. As 

an added incentive for such data activities are the opportunities to establish historic baselines of 

knowledge that are essential for ecosystem-based approaches, e.g., the reconstruction of likely 

historic fisheries catches in the Western Pacific region2. 

It was strongly suggested that existing data should be evaluated and assessed in detail first. By 

preliminary examining the presently existing fisheries dynamic, survey and other datasets in a 

collective and integrated manner, one might be able to determine if patterns exist that could be 

explained by several different models or hypotheses. This may provide a useful starting position 

for future data and model considerations. This endeavor should be undertaken in close 

collaboration with experienced management entities, and ideally with feedback from or 

coordination with experienced fishing entities to enable accounting for fishing and 

oceanographic history and knowledge. Furthermore, ecosystem-based management will place 

increasing demands on spatio-temporal data and information, both with respect to ecosystem 

components and functions, as well as resources use. Thus, VMS will increasingly become a 

central requirement for all extractive users in the context of ecosystem-based management 

approaches. Therefore, Council, NOAA and other responsible agencies should endeavor to use 

available VMS data for research efforts, and expand use of VMS for coverage of all fishing 

fleets. This may require concerted efforts in stakeholder engagement and buy-in, and possible 

adjustments in legal instruments. Such data provide unique and invaluable spatio-temporal 

information not obtainable otherwise (as it reflects fleet activities), especially if combined with 

vessel specific catch and effort information. These data will be essential for modelers to better 

understand spatial effort dynamics and why fishers make the decisions they do. Thus, a 

recommendation was that comprehensive, but preliminary meta-data-examinations and analyses 

of all available data (including VMS) should be undertaken as an initial step. 

The use and utility of MPAs and spatial fishing/exploitation experiments was identified as a key 

recommendation lending itself to adaptive management within ecosystem-based fisheries 

management. The crucial importance of adaptive management experiments, involving deliberate 

large-scale and long-term spatial comparisons of policy options, was repeatedly emphasized as 

fundamental to ecosystem-based management. Of utility are only MPAs large enough to have 

ecological integrity at an ecosystem and archipelagic scale. Hawaii was cited as one case: this 

would also require experiments in institutional arrangements for management in both the NWHI 

and MHI, including governance, stakeholder buy-in and participation, and governance associated 

enforcement and monitoring prior to and during establishment and management of MPAs. It was 

 

1 Zeller, D., Froese, R. and Pauly, D. (2005) On losing and recovering fisheries and marine science data. Marine 

Policy 29: 69-73. 

2 Zeller, D., Booth, S. and Pauly, D. (2005) Reconstruction of coral reef- and bottom-fisheries catches for U.S. flag 

island areas in the Western Pacific, 1950 to 2002. Report to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management 

Council, Honolulu, 110 p. Zeller, D., Booth, S., Craig, P. and Pauly, D. (2006) Reconstruction of coral reef fisheries 

catches in American Samoa, 1950-2002. Coral Reefs 25: 144-152. 
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-7 

deemed prudent at all levels of management and science to incorporate the long-term time 

horizon (decadal and longer) into the planning, governance, monitoring and enforcement aspects, 

and ensure stakeholder understanding of the potentially long ecosystem time scales. Of key 

importance however, is that adaptive management experiments are undertaken at the appropriate 

spatial and temporal scales, and are comprehensively executed. 

In terms of ecosystem modeling, the close interplay with policy and management options was 

identified as very important. A clear need was outlined to develop clear goals and constraints on 

the issues and questions to be addressed by models, to avoid arriving at a situation where models 

are called for to do everything. A model can generate a set of predictions of what might happen 

under different circumstances; it might expose uncertainties that should cause a responsible 

manager to think carefully about the management choices he/she has to make. Thus, 

management actions and research efforts need to be coordinated to better understand ecosystem 

dynamics. There is also a need to foster participatory decision-making, as more public concerns 

are raised about ecosystem protection. Thus, a recommendation was to ensure that all data 

collection and modeling or analytical efforts under the topic of ecosystem-based management are 

closely coordinated with, and driven by management needs and policy issues. A further 

recommendation was that models and analyses should be kept as simple as possible to permit 

clear and unambiguous addressing of ‘what if’ questions as part of the learning process, which is 

crucial in understanding whether a model is working and how it is responding to change. 

There was also a recommendation to ensure adequate support for ecosystem monitoring, research 

and modeling is available and being sourced. This needs to extend beyond the focus on 

extractive resources, to include an emphasis on ecosystem goods and services, and appropriate 

metrics for accounting for non-consumptive ecosystem services. These non-extractive goods and 

services will increasingly be deemed of equal importance (and ‘value’) with the market-based 

goods that are being produced by these ecosystems. 

With regards to the last recommendation on indicators, one of the larger challenges in 

ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management is how to link high level principles such as 

maintaining healthy and productive ecosystem to informative performance indicators. 

Unfortunately, aside from basic fishery performance indicators (e.g., related to fishery mortality 

rates and population sizes), there are no established criteria for determining proper reference 

levels at the ecosystem level. Additionally, quantifying the relative improvement of societal 

benefit (including non-market and indirect values) for a given management measure is a critical 

missing element for many reference points. 

It is important to recognize that most individual indicators would not be holistic ecosystem 

indicators per se, but would capture elements or selected properties of the ecosystem. It may be 

necessary to prioritize indicators, which likely will be subjective based on perceived 

management issues, but may over time identify effective indicators. 

There seems to be no single suite of quantitative ecosystem indicators to support fishery 

management requirements in the Western Pacific Region. The number and variety of indicators 

available, and the amount of information on each, make it difficult to select any single suite of 

indicators that fit all species and fisheries. 
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-8 

On the other hand, it may be useful to develop an ecosystem indicator framework analogous to 

the Leading Economic Indicators that provide a guide to the condition of the U.S. economy. It 

may be possible to select (or ‘evolve’ or experimentally develop) a combination of indicators 

that, over time, would provide a tool to understand species/ecological relationships, and to 

support predictions of future status and conditions under given management decisions. 

Proposed potentially useful indicators for ecosystem-based considerations (using the Pressure, 

State and Response approach) include information about status and trends of: 

• Habitat (‘quantity’ and ‘quality’); 

• Keystone/functional species dominants; 

• Sentinel species; 

• Protected species; 

• Assemblage structure; 

• Biodiversity; 

• Pathogens; 

• Harmful events (e.g., severe pollution events); and 

• Fishery-based data (catches, species, size, catch per effort, mortality). 

Thus, the final recommendation of the present workshop was to incorporate and evaluate a suite 

of indicators (possibly along the Pressure, State and Response groupings suggested in the 

workshop) in an evolving and adaptive process with input and review from experts in each 

region and region-wide. Initially, this suite will be based heavily on existing fishery-, habitatand protected species-indicators, but the suite should be re-considered, amended and reevaluated at every opportunity in line with management needs/issues and subsequent 

assessment/modeling requirements. Furthermore, the experiences of the North Pacific Regional 

Fishery Management Council should be more closely examined for potential applicability to the 

local situation. 

Additional comments 

Several additional points were raised by the participants, and marked for attention by 

management agencies during this workshop, and are worthwhile noting: 

The National Research Council (1999) Sustainable Fisheries Report put forward criteria for 

guidance in ecosystem-based fisheries management, with several points clearly identified that 

should form the guiding principles for the regions move towards ecosystem-based management: 

• Adopt conservative harvest levels; 

• Adopt a precautionary approach with respect to uncertainty; 

• Reduce excess capacity and assign ‘rights’ in fisheries; 

• Establish MPAs as a buffer against uncertainty and management failure; 

• Include by-catch and discards in catch accounting for all sectors; 

• Institute scientific and stakeholder reviews in transparent decision processes; 
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-9 

• Conduct targeted research on structure and function in ecosystems; and 

• Incorporate ecosystem-based goals in management decisions. 

Also, managers have to ensure the establishment and maintenance of the main prerequisites for 

ecosystem-based fisheries management: 

• Effective control over all fisheries by the management system; 

• Ability to enforce regulations; 

• Ability to monitor all harvest, including by-catch; 

• Ability to control fishing capacity and effort; and 

• Ability to establish incentives that match the goals. 

Furthermore, for scientists to develop models, undertake analyses and derive indicators useful to 

ecosystem-based management, managers need to: 

• Provide clear management objectives - management should listen to available 

scientific advice, including careful consideration of uncertainties associated with the 

advice; consider the full range of ecosystem-stakeholder values and opinions; and 

attempt to seek consensus. Ultimately, however, management has to make clear 

decisions as to what the chosen objectives are; 

• Remove institutional barriers to encourage effective collaboration in research and 

management; 

• Develop better policies and legislation if currently inadequate; and 

• Obtain/provide funding for the expanded research base likely needed to support 

ecosystem-based management. 

As a further suggestion for management agencies responsible for the Western Pacific region, it 

has been suggested that there have been workshops with fishers in most if not all of the U.S. 

territories, looking at coral reef fisheries management. For the most part, it is the fishing 

community itself which is not happy with the way coral reef resources are currently managed, 

given the general decrease in resources observed over the last few years and decades. 

Furthermore, as far as potential complexity of ecosystem-scale impacts are concerned, 

experience from the Caribbean should be considered, where herbivores and other species have 

been overfished, resulting in a de-pauperate herbivorous community that subsequently has been 

affected by side effects such as disease. While the disease may not have been clearly attributable 

to direct human impacts, the effects of the disease were deemed closely related to indirect human 

impact due to the fishing related reduction in community structure. So it behooves managers to 

take precautionary measures to ensure both functional and structural integrity of ecosystems by 

maintaining biodiversity and habitats, as well as target and non-target stocks at conservatively 

high levels. 

In order to engage in ecosystem-based fisheries management, fisheries stakeholders should 

recognize the inherent and often deep uncertainty associated with natural systems and the 

affiliated science; should insist that all management and exploitation be conservative and 

precautionary in nature; and should accept that the burden of proof rests with fisheries. This is a 
FPEIS Appendix B Page B-10 

task that management agencies are well placed to actively engage in, facilitate and lead. In 

principle, stakeholders need to expect that fisheries will change under ecosystem-based fisheries 

management, specifically: 

• Fisheries will be managed for stock abundance not scarcity or productivity, i.e., 

lower harvest rates from higher biomass; 

• Less fishing capacity and employment; 

• Higher incomes and use of technology; 

• Practices with high habitat impacts replaced with alternative techniques or shut 

down; 

• Greater use of spatially explicit management measures; and 

• Restrictions on fisheries to accomplish other goals, e.g., biodiversity protection, 

ecotourism, recreational use. 

In summary, as management in the Western Pacific region moves towards ecosystem-based 

fisheries management, six general points should be considered as main policy advice consistent 

with global scientific and management consensus: 

1. Industry and management should endeavor to be pro-active in changing the burden 

of proof regarding impacts of fishing, by taking an active participatory role in 

research and monitoring, and resource conservation and sustainability; 

2. Apply precautionary principle as default; 

3. Purchase ‘insurance’, e.g., adequately sized MPAs and spatial management options; 

4. Learn from management experience in other areas and by applying ‘adaptive 

management’ approaches; 

5. Use incentives to achieve goals; and 

6. Promote fairness and equity within overall ecosystem-based management 

objectives. 

In closing, it is prudent to realize that a ‘healthy’ ecosystem (being aware of the 

anthropomorphic danger in using this word) is good for ‘healthy’ fisheries. Hence, one could 

argue that implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management could lead to improved fisheries 

management of ‘healthy’, productive and sustainable fisheries. 
Appendix C. 

Summary Discussion of the Ecosystem Social Science 

Workshop, January 2006
This page left blank intentionally. 
FPEIS Appendix C Page C-1 

APPENDIX C - Summary Discussion of the Ecosystem Social Science 

Workshop 

Convened by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

January 17-20, 2006 

Introduction 

In 1998, the United States Congress authorized NOAA Fisheries to establish an Ecosystem 

Principles Advisory Panel (EPAP) to examine ways in which ecosystem principles might be 

applied to the management of our domestic marine fisheries. The Panel subsequently determined 

that such principles would best be applied by gradually replacing existing Fishery Management 

Plans (FMPs) used by the nation's regional fishery management councils with plans that 

incorporate useful information about the ecosystems within which domestic fisheries occur. 

These would be called Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs), and would involve a management 

approach that is "adaptive, specified geographically, takes into account ecosystem knowledge 

and uncertainties, considers multiple external influences, and strives to balance diverse social 

objectives" (NOAA 2004). 

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC; the Council) 

subsequently incorporated ecosystem principles in the nation's first ever ecosystem-based fishery 

management plan— a plan for managing coral reef ecosystems, first implemented in 2001. The 

Council has since drafted place-based FEPs to further the ecosystem-based approach across the 

region. A Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement has also been completed 

(National Marine Fisheries Service 2005a). 

In keeping with EPAP recommendations, the Council has undertaken an incremental and 

collaborative approach to implementing FEPs across the region. One element of this approach is 

the series of three workshops being conducted by the Council to aid in the transition from FMPs 

to FEPs and to enhance application of ecosystem-based management principles over the longterm. The workshops are facilitating informed discussion and expertise regarding the ecosystem 

approach and its effective application in the Western Pacific. 

The following pages report on the Ecosystem Social Science Workshop held by the Council in 

January of 2006. The first workshop, held in April 2005, addressed biophysical dimensions of 

ecosystem-based management. The social science workshop described herein addressed human 

dimensions of ecosystem-based approaches to resource management. A final workshop will be 

designed to synthesize the full range of biophysical and human considerations in an examination 

of regional ecosystem policy and governance. This will be held sometime late in 2006 or early 

2007. 

The social science workshop was organized and conducted through the collaborative efforts of 

Dr. Michael Orbach of the Duke Marine Lab, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth 

Sciences; and Impact Assessment, Inc. (IAI). 
FPEIS Appendix C Page C-2 

Workshop Goal 

The overarching goal of the workshop was to facilitate informed discussion of social science 

requirements for effectively supporting ecosystem-based approaches to marine resource 

management in the Western Pacific region and its sub-regions. 

 

Workshop Objectives 

1) Convene nationally-recognized social scientists and regional experts to review social science 

applications relevant to ecosystem-based marine resource management; 

2) Review resource management requirements and pertinent issues in the Western Pacific and 

its sub-regions; 

3) Identify the best suite of ecosystem indicators related to the Human and Institutional Ecology 

of marine ecosystems in the Western Pacific and its sub-regions; 

4) In the short term, and within the parameters of existing mandates (Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act), identify the 

most effective ecosystem-based approaches to marine resource management that incorporate 

the human dimension and that can be implemented based on current data; 

5) Explore what new social and policy science data or models would be needed to advance 

ecosystem-based approaches to marine resource management in the Western Pacific region 

and its sub-regions; 

6) Explore changes in policy or social and policy science administration that would be needed 

to more effectively implement ecosystem-based approaches to marine resource management 

in the Western Pacific region and its sub-regions. 

Summary Discussion 

The social science workshop addressed the human dimensions of ecosystem-based approaches to 

fishery resource management. The workshop emphasized the three major components of marine 

systems – the biophysical, the human constituent, and the institutional. A wide range of 

perspectives were presented on related topics and issues, including the following: 

3⁄4 Marine fisheries, fisheries management, and related human and biophysical factors in the 

Western Pacific, 

3⁄4 The need for and utility of social science in the context of ecosystem-based management in 

this region and elsewhere, 

3⁄4 Institutional constraints and opportunities for incorporating social science into ecosystembased management, 
FPEIS Appendix C Page C-3 

3⁄4 Relevant information needs, useful types of data, and data collection methods, 

3⁄4 Ecosystem-relevant human behavior and resource modeling, 

3⁄4 Indicators for assessing regulatory effects and the performance of management strategies, 

and 

3⁄4 Scope and scale of social science applications to ecosystem-based management. 

Workshop presentations and discussions were both general and specific in scope, and regional 

experts were on hand to help ground the discussions with their own perspectives on the realities 

of island life in the Pacific, and on the various fishery management challenges and solutions that 

have been encountered and applied in the region. 

Summary Points of Particular Relevance to Council FEP Objectives 

An extensive assortment of valuable insights, lessons, and pertinent background information 

about ecosystems, ecosystem social science, and the context of fisheries in the Western Pacific 

may be derived from the workshop and from these proceedings. Interested persons may consult 

the body of this report for such information. But some areas of discussion are particularly 

relevant to the information needs and objectives of the Council as it moves toward full adoption 

of its Fishery Ecosystem Plans. These lend themselves to summarization and are provided here 

as a means for bringing the long prior discussion to a conclusion. 

3⁄4 Definitions and parameters vary and continue to evolve, but there is general consensus 

that the ecosystem approach to fisheries management is novel in its attention to whole 

marine systems including relationships among the biophysical, human, and institutional 

components that comprise those systems. 

3⁄4 Human beings, groups, and institutions are critically important elements of marine 

ecosystems, and given their place in the trophic hierarchy, human behaviors, beliefs and 

values should be given primary consideration. 

3⁄4 The Council’s approach to ecosystem-based management to date involves adaptive 

management and emphasis on indigenous forms of resource management; both may be 

particularly amenable in the Pacific islands context. 

3⁄4 Indigenous Pacific islanders draw on lengthy histories and ever-evolving knowledge and 

traditions of interaction with ocean ecosystems and with each other to successfully use 

that environment. Persons arriving here during more recent centuries also draw upon 

traditional and experiential knowledge. Both groups may provide valid information and 

perspectives on viable models for planning and administration of ecosystem-based 

management in the region. 
FPEIS Appendix C Page C-4 

3⁄4 The nascent paradigm shift to ecosystem-based management may potentially lead to 

further institutional complexity in this unique region of multiple jurisdictions. Given the 

size of the region, extensive diversity in socio-demographic and socio-political context, 

and the increasing influence of international decisions regarding migratory species, an 

incremental and adaptive approach may be the best way to proceed. 

3⁄4 The Council has developed ten objectives for its Fishery Ecosystem Plans. Given the 

scope of the objectives and potential challenges associated with meeting them, setting 

priorities and formulating specific management measures may prove most useful for 

effectively meeting Council goals. Those measures ideally will be formulated based on 

the many potential contributions of the applied social sciences. 

3⁄4 Each archipelago in the region is distinct in terms of socio-cultural, socioeconomic, and 

demographic conditions; mode and culture of governance; environmental conditions; and 

types and extent of fishing and other pursuits and uses of marine resources. This 

variation may be effectively addressed for purposes of meeting FEP objectives through 

appropriate application of social science methods and analysis, including those methods 

that facilitate public participation in resource management decision-making processes. 

3⁄4 An array of data collection methods and analytical techniques has been developed to aid 

in understanding and communicating both the effects of human activities on biophysical 

systems and the effects of changing biophysical conditions on resource user groups. 

3⁄4 Selection of social science methods and analytical techniques should be closely tailored 

to the information needs and objectives at hand, and to particular environmental and 

societal aspects of each archipelago. 

3⁄4 Valid social and economic indicators are particularly useful for assessing and monitoring 

direct and indirect human-environmental interactions, and as a basis for adjusting 

resource use policy under the new mode of management. Indicators should articulate 

with a wide range of climatic, macro-economic, socio-demographic, regulatory, and 

community-related factors. In this case, such indicators will need to be developed based 

on: (a) their potential utility for meeting Council objectives, (b) extant data and the social 

and biophysical contexts in question, and (c) relevant indicators literature. 

3⁄4 A social science approach to ecosystem-based management in the region should be 

developed to enhance Council efforts to meet its FEP objectives and to administer the 

new form of management over the long term. The approach would include a series of 

related elements, as follow: 

• A venue or venues for choosing high priority FEP objectives, specific 

management measures for meeting those objectives, and valid social and 

economic indicators; 

• Design of research to meet prioritized objectives and related information needs; 
FPEIS Appendix C Page C-5 

• Implementation of a research strategy to gather and analyze requisite 

information, and an indicators-based archipelagic monitoring system through 

which to gauge and analytically parse social change potentially associated with 

Council actions; and 

• Implementation of a liaison and performance and evaluation program to ensure 

the validity and effectiveness of the social science approach to ecosystem-based 

management in the region. 

3⁄4 Social science cannot be equated with community development per se, but application of 

social science may further understanding of community context, local receptivity to or 

need for development programs, and the potential or actual social and economic costs and 

benefits of such programs. Social science may therefore be used to help identify ways in 

which communities and individuals may participate in the abundance of positive ocean 

opportunities available throughout the Western Pacific region. 

3⁄4 Given that a number of fisheries or fisheries-relevant social science research and 

monitoring programs have been undertaken in the United States and abroad in recent 

years, the Council FEP social science approach would ideally articulate with these, both 

drawing upon and contributing to the base of knowledge regarding human interaction 

with the marine environment and the many related aspects of human behavior discussed 

during the course of the workshop. 

Concluding Discussion 

Based on the input of national and regional experts convened for the WPRFMC Ecosystem 

Social Science Workshop, we have presented valid social science approaches to ecosystem-based 

management. These may be of potential utility to the Council as it moves toward full adoption 

of its FEPs across the region. The workshop and report have enabled development of 

background information necessary for initiating refinement of such approaches for real-time 

application in the Western Pacific. Further work with fisheries managers, compilation and 

review of archival data, and field reconnaissance will enable full inventory of relevant existing 

information, identification of salient and ongoing management issues and related information 

needs, and development of detailed research agendas and designs for specific island areas. 

As for biophysical approaches to ecosystem-based management, viable social science 

approaches must enable understanding of whole systems and relationships between their 

respective components, including those of user and interest groups, seafood distributors and 

consumers, and even fisheries researchers and managers and the institutions within which they 

operate. In the spirit of holistic ecosystem principles and concepts, social science approaches 

must and can also bear ermpirically-grounded information of predictive utility for management 

of biophysical components of marine systems. 

There is much human and environmental variability within and across the island groups that 

comprise the vast Western Pacific region. Social science approaches must address such variation 

and translate findings in a manner that is optimally useful for resource managers seeking to make 
FPEIS Appendix C Page C-6 

fair and equitable decisions in an increasingly complex and contested socio-political 

environment. Regional variation notwithstanding, pursuit and consumption of seafood and 

related cultural processes are constant and critically important aspects of life throughout the 

archipelagos. As such, there is vital need for understanding and longitudinal monitoring of the 

full range of factors that may impinge on these activities and processes, including the potential 

effects of conservation interests and ecosystem-based management. 

Ecosystem concepts and principles were developed and applied in adaptive fashion in this region 

long ago. Indeed, learned ways of efficient interaction with marine and terrestrial ecosystems led 

to the proliferation of island societies throughout Oceania. Initial periods of trial and error 

gradually led to the ordering of society in a manner that in certain places and times enabled 

equilibrium between available marine resources and the demands of human groups depending on 

them for purposes of survival. By virtue of attention to and accumulation of knowledge 

regarding the natural world that surrounded them, and through various mechanisms of social 

control, Pacific islanders were ultimately successful in overcoming various ecological 

challenges, including those initiated by their ancestors. 

The context has changed dramatically over the millennia, and many of the challenges we now 

face are global in scale. Yet it may be that knowledge of connections within and across island 

societies and ecosystems, and proven means for managing the activities of those who use and 

depend on marine resources for so many reasons, remain the most viable points of departure for 

addressing marine resource challenges in the Pacific in the decades to come. 
Appendix D. 

Relevant Laws and Executive Orders
This page left blank intentionally. 
FPEIS Appendix D Page D-1 

Appendix D: Relevant Laws and Executive Orders. 

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or 

MSA) is the primary law governing fisheries resources and fishing activities in Federal waters. 

Originally enacted as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976, it has been 

amended frequently since 1976; most recently in 1996, by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The 

primary goals at the time of enactment of the MSA were the conservation and management of 

U.S. fishery resources, the development of United States domestic fisheries, and the phasing out 

of foreign fishing activities within the U.S. EEZ. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is the foundation of modern American 

environmental protection in the United States and its commonwealths, territories, and 

possessions. NEPA requires that Federal agency decision makers, in carrying out their duties, use 

all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist 

in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other needs of present and future 

generations of Americans. NEPA provides a mandate and a framework for Federal agencies to 

consider all reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of their proposed actions and to 

involve and inform the public in the decision-making process. NEPA compliance for fisheries 

management actions is further guided by regulations issued by the Council on Environmental 

Quality and those issued by the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Administrative Order 216-6, Implementing the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife, and 

plants that are listed as threatened or endangered in the United States or elsewhere. Provisions 

are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat 

for listed species. The ESA outlines procedures for Federal agencies to follow when taking 

actions that may jeopardize listed species, and contains exceptions and exemptions. Criminal and 

civil penalties are provided for violations of the ESA. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of 

marine mammals in U.S. and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine 

mammals and marine mammal products into the United States. The MMPA gives the Secretary 

authority and duties for all cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals and 

sea lions, except walruses). The MMPA requires the NMFS to prepare and periodically review 

stock assessments of marine mammal stocks. 
FPEIS Appendix D Page D-2 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires Federal agencies to give the public prior 

notice of rule making and an opportunity to comment on proposed rules. General notice of 

proposed rule making must be published in the Federal Register, unless persons subject to the 

rule have actual notice of the rule. Proposed rules published in the Federal Register must include 

reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed and explain the nature of the 

proposal including what action is proposed, why, what are its intended effects, and any relevant 

regulatory history that provides the public with a well-informed basis for understanding and 

commenting on the proposal. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to assess the impacts of their 

proposed regulations on small entities and to seek ways to minimize economic effects on small 

entities that would be disproportionately or unnecessarily adversely affected. The most recent 

amendments to the RFA were enacted on March 29, 1996, with the Contract with America 

Advancement Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121). Title II of that law, the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), amended the RFA to require Federal agencies 

to determine whether a proposed regulatory action would have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. For a Federal agency, the most significant effect of 

SBREFA is that it made compliance with the RFA judicially reviewable. 

Freedom of Information Act 

The original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allowed the public to obtain government 

information, provided that the information is not protected by one of the nine specific FOIA 

exemptions, and required that an agency respond to a FOIA request within specified time limits. 

Exempted information includes the following: classified secret matter of national defense or 

foreign policy, internal personnel rules and practices, information specifically exempted by other 

statutes, trade secrets and commercial and financial information, privileged interagency or intraagency memoranda or letters, personal information affecting an individual’s privacy, and 

investigatory records for law enforcement purposes. 

In 1996, the Electronic FOIA (E-FOIA) amendments changed FOIA by (among other things) 

extending the time limit that agencies had to respond to FOIA requests and requiring agencies to 

make reports available to the public by computer telecommunications or other electronic means, 

including listing their major information systems and a guide for obtaining information and 

establishing an electronic reading room that includes agency policies, staff manuals, and an 

index of records released under FOIA requests. NMFS compliance with FOIA is also guided by 

NOAA Administrative Order 205-14. 

Information Quality Act 

The Information Quality Act (IQA), sometimes referred to as the Data Quality Act, was enacted 

in December 2000 as Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 
FPEIS Appendix D Page D-3 

for Fiscal Year 2001. The act required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue 

guidance to federal agencies designed to ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity” of 

information disseminated to the public. It also required agencies to issue their own information 

quality guidelines and to establish administrative mechanisms that allow affected persons to seek 

correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agencies that does not comply 

with the OMB guidance. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is designed to encourage and assist states in 

developing coastal management programs, to coordinate state activities, and to safeguard 

regional and national interests in the coastal zone. Section 307(c) of the CZMA requires that any 

Federal activity affecting the land or water uses or natural resources of a state’s coastal zone be 

consistent to the maximum extent possible with the enforceable policies of the affected state’s 

approved coastal management program. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 requires that agencies obtain Office of 

Management and Budget approval before requesting most types of information from the public. 

"Information collections" include forms, interviews, recordkeeping requirements, and vessel and 

gear marking, to name a few categories. 

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, requires that Federal agencies incorporate environmental 

justice into their mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States. 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13132 to ensure that the principles of federalism 

are carried out according to the vision of the framers of the Constitution. Among the pertinent 

provisions of the order are the guiding fundamental principles of federalism, policymaking 

criteria, special requirements for preemption, special requirements for legislative proposals and 

increasing flexibility for state and local waivers. Federalism is based on the belief that issues not 

national in scope should be addressed by the level of government closest to the people. 

Executive Order 12630: Taking 

Each year federal agencies issue numerous proposed or final rules or take other regulatory 

actions that may potentially affect the use of private property. Some of these actions may result 

in the property owner being owed just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. In 1988 the 

President issued Executive Order 12630 on property rights to ensure that government actions 

affecting the use of private property are undertaken on a well-reasoned basis with due regard for 
FPEIS Appendix D Page D-4 

the potential financial impacts imposed on the government. 

Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas 

Executive Order 13158 directs the Departments of Commerce and the Interior, and other federal 

agencies, to strengthen and expand a national system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 

working closely with state, territorial, local, tribal, and other stakeholders. Areas protected 

include coral reefs, kelp forests, shipwrecks, and those frequented by whales and other marine 

life. It covers oceans, coastal areas, and the Great Lakes. 
 

Appendix E. 

Public Comments on the Revised Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, “Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the 

Western Pacific Region: From Species-based Fishery Management 

Plans to Place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans,” March 30, 2007
 

This page left blank intentionally. 
• 

• 

• 

De~artment of Agriculture 

Dipattamenton Agrikottura 

163 Dairy Road, Mangilao, Guam 96913 

Felix P. Camacho 

Governor 

Michael W. Cruz. M.D. 

Lt. Governor 

Director's Office 

Agricultural Dev. Services 

Animal Health 

Aquatic & Wildlife Resources 

Forestry & Soil Resources 

Plant Nursery 

Plant Protection & Quarantine 

734-3942/43; Fax 734-6569 

734-3946/47; Fax 734-8096 

734-3940 

735-3955/56; Fax 734-6570 

735-3949/50; Fax 734-0111 

734-3949 

472-1651;475-1426 

Fax 477-9487 

May 29, 2007 

William Robinson 

Regional Administrator 

NOAA 

Pacific Islands Regional Office 

1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

Dear Mr. Robinson: 

Paul C. Bassler 

Director 

Joseph D. Torres 

Deputy Director 

Our agency·s Fisheries Section reviewed the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement "Toward an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From 

Species-Based Fishery Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans. 

Although Agriculture has no objection to the Preferred Alternatives for the Components 

of Federal action related to fishery management on Guam, our comments are as follows: 

1. Council jurisdiction of Guam does not begin until three (3) miles from 

Guam shores, while the Council's jurisdiction begins at the shoreline of 

.the .. N:orthem. Mariana Islands. Data comparison. analysis. and results may .. not be comparable using the existing data collecting methodology. 

2. Page 4-53 correctly states that community involvement in the reduction of 

exogenous factors (e.g. improperly placed marine preserves) is a goal to 

achieve. However, the wording of this comment appears uninformed and 

needs clarification since the selection of Guam's marine preserves 

involved input from fishery experts (longtime shore-based fishermen), 

data analysis from years of creel data, is a response from decreasing 

fishery CPUE, was presented at three (3} public hearings, and has 

garnered more support from local fishermen than what the draft 

documents seems to imply. It is important to know that Agriculture 
• 

• 

• 

implemented these five marine preserves as a response from local experts 

(e.g. longtime fishermen). In addition, these marine preserves fall outside 

the jurisdiction of the Council and should be deleted from this document. 

3. Related to comment #2 is the effect of land-based impacts on coral reef 

degradation. However, the Department of Agriculture has no authority to 

regulate these activities ( e.g. sedimentation from fires and runoff, clearing 

activities authorized by other agencies, pollutants entering the marine 

environment by storm drainage pipes, non-fishing activities, fishing 

pressure, etc.). The success of an ecosystem-based approach must not 

merely identify these effects as they are well-documented. These effects 

must have plans in place to eliminate their impacts if an ecosystem-based 

plan has any chance of success. 

4. One significant challenge for Guam's data collection efforts is ensuring 

that enough data is collected in order to give an accurate picture of 

Guam's :fisheries. However, since data collected from :fishermen and 

establishments are strictly voluntary, :fishermen and commercial dealers 

have opted to withhold fishery data, despite the number of fishermen that 

represent Guam on various levels of the Council family. A strong effort to 

go beyond "encouraging" these representatives to increase fishermen and 

fish vendor participation should be done. An example is a letter from one 

of Guam's members to the 16 member Council of his intent to no longer 

provide Agriculture with data necessary to evaluate Guam's local fishery . 

This response appears to be clearly contradictory to this ecosystem-based 

approach, which is dependent on "Best Available Data." 

5. Agriculture is constrained by providing adequate law enforcement of its 

fishery laws. It has become necessary to explore options to work towards 

acquiring Federal funds for limited funding for law enforcement of fishing 

activity. An ecosystem-based management plan may be of no use if law 

enforcement is inadequate. Since Guam is currently in a state of fiscal 

austerity, a creative source of funding acquired from federal sources is 

necessary. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

P--~t!~ 

PAUL C. BASSLER 
• 

• 

• 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Office of the Attorney General 

2nd Floor Hon. Juan A. Sablan Memorial Bldg. 

Civil Division 

Tel: (670) 664-2341 

Fax: (670) 664-2349 

Criminal Division 

Tel: (670) 664-2366 

Fax: (670) 234-7016 

Jnvestigative Unit 

Tel:(670) 664-2366/67/68 

Fax: ( 670) 664-2319 

Division of 

Immigration 

June 22, 2007 

Caller Box 10007, Capitol Hill 

Saipan, MP 96950 

William Robinson 

Regional Administrator 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Ste 1110 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

WesternPacificRDPEIS@noaa.gov 

RE: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Saipan 

Tel: (670) 236-0922/23 Dear Mr. Robinson, 

Fax: (670) 664-3190 

Rota 

Tel: ( 670) 532-9436 

Fax: (670) 532-3190 

Tinian 

Tel: (670) 433-3712 

Fax: (670) 433-3730 

Domestic Violence 

]ntervention Center 

Tel: (670) 664-4583/4 

Fax: (670) 234-4589 

Thank you for your generously offered extension of time to allow the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ("CNMI") to submit 

supplemental comments for your consideration. These comments seek to clarify 

a fundamental defect in the jurisdictional analysis within the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement ("Draft EIS'') concerning the extent of the 

CNMI's authority to regulate the fisheries occurring within its surrounding 

waters. During the review of the Draft EIS it was discovered that similar errors in 

jurisdictional analysis are pervasive throughout Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council ("WESP AC") documents. The CNMI sincerely hopes that 

these comments will assist WESPAC and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (''NOAA-NMFS") in the correction of this 

most egregious error. 

The environmental analysis is built on the faulty premise that the CNMI possesses no 

jurisdictional authority over the marine resources within the waters extending from its shoreline 

to reaches of the EEZ. As the Draft EIS states: 

The Territory of American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, and the State of Hawaii 

manage all marine resources and regulated fisheries within waters O to 3 miles from their · 

shorelines. In the CNMI the submerged lands and marine resources from the shoreline to 

200 miles have been determined to be under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. 

Draft EIS, p. 1-16. 

In the absence of a citation to authority, the CNMI must assume that NOAA-NMFS and 

WESP AC have mistakenly linked ownership of submerged lands with authority to regulate 

marine resources. In so doing, NOAA-NMFS have made two errors by not recognizing that: 1) 

Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ("Magnuson Act") jurisdictional 

boundaries are not based on Submerged Lands Act delineations; and 2) the CNMI presently 

CNMI Draft EIS Comments 

NOAA-NMFS/WESPAC 

June 22, 2007 

Page 1 of5 
• retains qualified rights to its submerged lands that are near to equal those of the other U.S. 

• 

• 

Pacific jurisdictions. 

State Authority to Regulate Fisheries Under Magnuson Act 

The Magnuson Act recognizes three jurisdictional boundaries for coastal states, each of which 

are set by internationally recognized law of the sea delineations; to wit: a state retains exclusive 

jurisdiction to regulate fisheries within its boundaries, 16 U .S.C. § 1856( a )(1 ); a state is 

delegated jurisdiction and authority over fisheries within "any pocket of water that is adjacent to 

the State and totally enclosed by lines delimiting the territorial sea of the United States pursuant 

to the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone," 16 U.S.C. § 

1856(a)(2)(A); and, a coastal state may regulate the fishing activities of its domestically 

registered vessels outside the state boundaries, when in compliance with the Federal fishing 

regulations and management plans for that area. 16 U.S.C. § 1856(a)(3). 

Regarding the innermost jurisdictional boundary, U.S. law and the international law of the sea 

recognize a coastal state's exclusive dominion over the waters landward of the state's coastline. 

Art. 5 § 1, First Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone ("UNCLOS I''), entered 

into force September 10, 1964, 15 U.S.T. 1606, 1964 WL 70232; see also, U.S. v. Louisiana, 363 

U.S. 1, 66-67, 80 S.Ct. 961, 997-998 (1960). The coastline of the CNMI includes all waters, 

submerged lands, and natural resources to a depth of at least 10 fathoms and includes certain 

coastal features. See attached, CNMI Attorney General's Opinion 07-01. With few exceptions, 

all coral reefs supporting the subsistence fishery in the CNMI are located within the CNMI' s 

coastline and are under the CNMI's exclusive jurisdiction. 

Comment 1: All jurisdictional references within the Draft EIS to "shoreline" must be removed, 

since federal-state jurisdictional boundaries for all seaward natural resource management are set 

by a state's "coastline." 16 U.S.C. § 1856(a)(l) (fishery management); 43 U.S.C. § 131 l(a) 

(property and mineral management); 48 U.S.C. § 1705(a) (property and mineral management); 

See also, United States v. California, 322 U.S. 19, 30-31, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1664 (1947)(discussing 

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212, 1845 WL 6003 (1845)). 

Comment 2: The Draft EIS must describe the near shore waters surrounding the CNMI that are 

under the exclusive jurisdiction and authority of the CNMI. See attached CNMI Attorney 

General's Opinion 07-01 for descriptions ofCNMI near shore waters. 

In regards to the territorial sea surrounding the CNMI, for the purposes of fisheries management 

Congress delegated to the states jurisdiction and authority over the width of the territorial sea 

claimed by the United States pursuant to UNCLOS I. 16 U.S.C. § 1856(a)(2)(A). The United 

States has claimed a twelve-mile territorial sea under its UNCLOS I authority. Proclamation 

5928 (December 27, 1988) 57 Fed Reg 777. Therefore, the CNMI and other U.S. coastal 

jurisdictions have a territorial sea for the purposes of fisheries management that is twelve miles 

wide, commencing from the coastline of the state . 

CNMI Draft EIS Comments 

NOAA-NMFS/WESPAC 

June 22, 2007 

Page 2 of 5 
• The extra-territorial jurisdiction provisions found in the Magnuson Act are not the first instances 

of Congress' grant of jurisdiction beyond a state's inland or even territorial waters. As the U.S. 

Supreme Court describes, with many historic examples, in United States v. Alaska: "This limited 

circumscription of the traditional freedom of fishing on the high seas is based, in part, on a 

recognition of the special interest that a coastal state has in the preservation of the living 

resources in the high seas adjacent to its territorial sea." 422 U.S. 184, 199, 95 S.Ct. 2240, 2251 

(1975). 

• 

• 

Without proper citations to authority or explanations in the Draft EIS, the CNMI is left to guess 

why NOAA-NMFS and WESPAC completely removed the CNMI's congressionally delegated 

jurisdiction and reduced the other Pacific areas to a three-mile marginal sea. The CNMI assumes 

that NOAA-NMFS and WESPAC have confused the congressional authorization for states to 

develop domestic fisheries in a twelve mile marginal belt with Congress' restriction of federal 

authority to permit foreign fishing vessels from fishing within a coastal state's territorial 

boundary. Compare, 16 U.S.C. § 1856(a)(2)(A) and 16 U.S.C. 1802(11) (the term "exclusive 

economic zone" is only used in relation to foreign fishing provisions). Under the Magnuson Act, 

there is an overlap of regulatory authority from three to twelve miles - the coastal state does not 

have independent jurisdiction beyond twelve miles and the federal government may not permit 

foreign fishing nearer than three miles from a coastline. 

Comment 3: All jurisdictional references to federal authority over CNMI waters within twelvemile of the CNMI coastline must be removed. The Draft EIS should reflect Congresses 

delegation of jurisdiction and authority over a twelve mile territorial sea surrounding the CNMI. 

Comment 4: All jurisdictional references to federal authority over Hawaiian, America Samoan, 

and Guam waters beyond three miles should be changed to reflect the direct Congressional 

delegation of authority over the twelve-mile territorial sea surrounding each of these 

jurisdictions. 

The Draft EIS consistently states that the waters within the United States exclusive economic 

zone (12 to 200 miles pursuant to Proclamation 5030 (March 10, 1983) 48 Fed. Reg. 10605) 

surrounding the CNMI are federal waters since the CNMI has no jurisdiction over the submerged 

lands underlying these waters. The Magnuson Act authorizes states to regulate fisheries outside 

of the state boundary (12 miles) upon the state's development oflaws and regulations that are 

consistent with the Act, its regulations, and any applicable fishery management plan. 16 U.S.C. § 

1856(3). Magnuson Act delegation of jurisdiction to manage fisheries is not premised in any 

manner upon a coastal state securing title or mineral rights to underlying submerged lands. 

Comment 5: Since Magnuson Act jurisdiction is not premised on a coastal state's secured 

mineral or property rights all references to the status of the CNMI' s rights over its submerged 

lands are immaterial and must be removed. 

Without citation to authority or an explanation of its reasoning, the CNMI is again left to guess 

why NOAA-NMFS and WESPAS declare throughout the Draft EIS that all CNMI submerged 

CNMI Draft EIS Comments 

NOAA-NMFS/WESPAC 

June 22, 2007 

Page 3 of 5 
• lands and natural resources from the shoreline to 200 miles have been determined to be under the 

jurisdiction of the federal government. We assume that the writer of the Draft EIS has 

unwittingly relied on the logical fallacy of non sequitur. 1 The N.Ml. v. United States. 

submerged lands decisions held that Congress did not grant the CNMI sovereign and exclusive 

right to all adjacent submerged lands to the limit of the U.S. exclusive economic zone. N.MI. v 

United States, 399 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir. 2005), cert denied, 126 S.Ct. 1566 (2006). 

However, the inverse of that conclusion- that the federal government has sovereign and 

exclusive rights over all CNMI waters from the shoreline to 200 miles - cannot be found in the 

decisions and is not true. 

• 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the matter is attached to these comments. The 

CNMI sincerely hopes that NOAA-NMFS and the WESPAC members read this decision. Of 

particular importance is the Court's polite rebuke of the trial judge's discussions of coastal 

features (this may be the source of the "shoreline" confusion) where the Court stated: "We 

express no opinion as to the specific contours of the boundaries of the interior waters and we do 

not read the district court's opinion as doing so, either." N.Ml. v. U.S. at 399 F.3d 1057, 1067 

(ftnt. 12). 

It should also be noted that the CNMI, Guam, and American Samoa presently share identical 

mineral and property rights to the submerged lands beyond three-miles - since the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act, which grants coastal states mineral rights to exclusive economic 

zone submerged lands, only applies to the "States of the Union." 43 U.S.C. § 1331(a); See also, 

48 U .S.C. § 1706( d) (Territorial Submerged Lands Act conveys no rights over lands beyond 

three-mile limit). Additionally, the CNMI retains concurrent jurisdiction over the three-mile 

marginal belt, which is the equivalent authority as that held by Guam and American Samoa. 

Compare, 48 U.S.C. § 1704 and United States v. California, 322 U.S. 19, 36, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 

1667 (1947). Furthermore, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clearly states: "The CNMI is 

entitled2 to the same interest in the seaward submerged lands as that of the states when they 

submitted to the sovereignty of the United States." N.MI. v United States, 399 F.3d 1057, 1065-

66. 

The CNMI maintains its irrevocable executory interest to its three-mile marginal sea during this 

period when it is negotiating amendments to the federal Territorial Submerged Lands Act. The 

CNMI's proposed amendments would grant territories and insular possessions the same rights to 

submerged lands and resources as those that are presently enjoyed by the 50 states. 

Comment 6: References to CNMI submerged lands should be removed from the Draft EIS not 

only because they are jurisdictionally irrelevant (See, Comment 5 and associated text), but also 

because these references to CNMI submerged lands are patently incorrect. 

In the review of the Draft EIS, it was noted that a number of fishery management plans and other 

related documents restrict or remove the CNMI' s jurisdiction to regulate its subsistence and 

1 non sequitur (n) "a conclusion that does not follow from the argument"; Lat. "it does not follow" Black's Law 

Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1991) 

• 2 entitled (adj) "qualified for by right according to law" Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1991) 

CNMI Draft EIS Comments 

NOAA-NMFS/WESPAC 

June 22, 2007 

Page 4 of 5 
• commercial fisheries. It appears from this cursory review that this removal of jurisdiction has 

been underway for several years. This is an intolerable affront to CNMI's sovereignty and the 

principles of federalism. 

• 

• 

The CNMI is not only concerned with NOAA-NMFS and WESPAC's incursion into the 

CNMI's spatial jurisdiction, the current proposal envisions WESPAC involvement in changes to 

the structure and processes of coastal resource management plans. Draft EIS, p. vi. In fact, the 

proposal recognizes "There is potential for jurisdictional disputes." Id. Since NOAA-NMFS and 

WESP AC are presently claiming jurisdiction and control over all CNMI waters - including 

internal CNMI waters up to the CNMI shoreline - it is absolutely essential that NOAA-NMFS 

and WESP AC fully disclose what modifications are being contemplated for the CNMI coastal 

resources management program and regulations. 

Comment 7: The CNMI requests that NOAA-NMFS and WESPAC fully consider the CNMI's 

comments and documentation of legal authorities and include full discussions of these 

fundamental jurisdictional issues in a Second Draft EIS. 

Comment 8: The CNMI requests that NOAA-NMFS and WESPAC comply with their duties 

under Executive Order 13132, 64 Fed.Reg. 43255, to recognize and fully discuss the federalism 

issues and the potential and actual jurisdictional conflicts that arise from this proposed action. 

While remaining cognizant of the benefits associated with place-based ecosystem management, 

the CNMI' s first order of business is to repair the breach of sovereignty which has apparently 

been taking place over the last few years. Under the Magnuson Act's properly apportioned 

jurisdictional authorities, the CNMI could support the Draft EIS' Alternative lD, and 

jurisdictional errors in the current fishery management plans could be corrected during the 

conversion to fishery ecosystem plans. However, ifNOAA-NMFS and WESPAC continue to 

diminish the CNMI's authority over its natural resources, the CNMI must oppose any 

management plan or program that excludes the CNMI from the jurisdiction and authority 

conferred by the Magnuson Act. 

Thank you again for allowing the CNMI to submit these supplemental comments. If you have 

any questions, or require and additional supporting documents or clarifications, please forward 

inquiries to sean.lynch@saipan.com. 

Sincerely yours, 

Sean 

~~ P. Lynch 

Asst. Attorney General 

CNMI Draft EIS Comments 

NOAA-NMFS/WESPAC 

June 22, 2007 

Page 5 of 5 
-

• 

• 

Civil Division 

Tel: (670) 664-2341 

Fax: (670) 664-2349 

Criminal Division 

Tel: (670) 664-2366 

Fax: (670) 234-7016 

Investigative Unit 

Tcl:(670) 664-2366/67/68 

Fax: (670) 664-2319 

Division of 

Immigration 

Saipan 

Tel: (670) 236-0922/23 

Fax: (670)664-3190 

Rota 

Tel: (670) 532-9436 

Fax: (670) 532-3190 

Tinian 

Tel: (670) 433-3712 

Fax: (670) 433-3730 

Domestic Violence 

1 ntervention Center 

Tel: (670) 664-4583/4 

Fax: (670) 234-4589 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Office of the Attorney General 

2nd Floor Hon. Juan A. Sablan Memorial Bldg. 

Caller Box 10007, Capitol Hill 

Saipan, MP 96950 

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION NO: 07-01 

In Re: The CNMI' s Rights Over its Submerged Lands 

QUESTION PRESENTED: What rights are retained by the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands ("CNMI" or "Commonwealth") over its abutting 

oceanic submerged lands after the adverse federal court decisions in Northern 

Mariana Islands v. United States of America, No. Civ.A. 99-0028, 2003 WL 

22997235 (D.N.Mar.l. Aug. 7, 2003), ajf'd, 399 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005), cert 

denied, 126 S.Ct. 1566 (2006)? 

SHORT ANSWER: The CNMI has unimpeded jurisdiction over its internal 

waters and underlying submerged lands. The CNMI maintains traditional police 

powers in the three-mile wide territorial sea. The CNMI is entitled to additional 

rights in its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, though the specific extent 

of those rights must be clarified by, and vested though, an act of Congress . 

BACKGROUND: 

The CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resource's Division of Fish and Wildlife 

("DFW'') requested a legal opinion explaining the basis of its jurisdiction to enforce CNMI 

laws regulating fishing practices and equipment within the Commonwealth's near shore 

waters. DFW's jurisdiction has been repeatedly questioned after the adverse decision in the 

CNMI's federal lawsuit challenging the United States' claim of rights to the CNMI's abutting 

submerged lands. (Northern Mariana Islands v. United States of America, No. Civ.A. 99-

0028, 2003 WL 22997235 (D.N.Mar.L Aug. 7, 2003), ajf'd, 399 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005), 

cert denied, 126 S.Ct. 1566 (2006)). 

The answer to whether a government needs title to property in order to regulate the fish or 

wildlife passing over it was best summarized by Oliver Wendell Holmes, the revered chief 

justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, when he stated: "To put the claim of the State [to exclusive 

regulation of wildlife] upon title is to lean upon a slender reed." Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 

416,434, 40 S.Ct. 382,384 (1920). Though property ownership does not provide the basis for 

authority to regulate fish and wildlife, the persistent question as to the extent of the 

Commonwealth's rights over its oceanic submerged lands remains. This opinion fully 

explains the Commonwealth's present rights to its submerged lands . 
• 

• 

ANALYSIS: 

On March 20, 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its order denying the Commonwealth's 

request for review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision regarding the submerged 

lands surrounding the Northern Mariana Islands. Northern Mariana Islands v. United States, 

_ U.S. _, 126 S.Ct. 1566 (2006). As a result of that order, the Commonwealth could no 

longer claim absolute ownership of all adjacent submerged lands extending offshore to a 200-

mile limit. The Supreme Court order - which makes the Ninth Circuit decision on the matter 

the final word- did not extinguish the Commonwealth's rights over the submerged lands as is 

often reported; rather, it finalized the Ninth Circuit's clarification of the respective interests of 

the Commonwealth and the United States in the contested submerged lands. 

Relying on the precedence of the 'paramountcy cases', the Ninth Circuit decision affirmed the 

district court's conclusion that the federal government has a paramount interest in the control 

of the nation's territorial seas in the interests of defense and national security. Northern 

Mariana Islands v. United States, 399 F.3d 1057, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2005) (hereinafter "N.MI. 

v. US."). The Ninth Circuit decision explains at length that the Commonwealth maintains 

rights to its adjacent submerged lands, which diminish - while the national rights increase - as 

the land in question moves further into the open sea. Id Thus, while the Commonwealth 

maintains qualified rights to its submerged lands, its claim to sovereignty over these lands 

through the Commonwealth Submerged Lands Act and Marine Sovereignty Act was declared 

preempted by federal law. Id at 1066 . 

The CNMI submerged lands litigation provided the irrefutable conclusion that the 

Commonwealth does not have exclusive and absolute right to all submerged lands extending 

out 200 miles. Since the extent of the Commonwealth's rights over its abutting submerged 

lands must be determined by an act of Congress, N.MI. v. U.S., at 1066, the Commonwealth's 

rights at this time cannot be stated with absolute precision. There is, however, well-settled 

federal law in regards to the allocation of rights to submerged lands that will guide the 

negotiations and final determination of the Commonwealth's rights. 

The degree of a coastal state's authority over its submerged lands is apportioned in relation to 

three geographic zones: 1) those lands nearest the shore, or "internal submerged lands"; 2) the 

belt of submerged lands beyond the internal submerged lands and extending outward three 

miles, underlying the "territorial seas"; and, 3) those submerged lands beyond the three mile 

belt and extending to the reaches of the United States exclusive economic zone, occupying the 

area referred to as "the high seas". United States v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 11, 22, 89 S.Ct. 773, 

781 (1969). The Commonwealth's interests within these three geographic zones are discussed 

below. 

1) Internal Submerged Lands 

The greatest source of confusion regarding the Commonwealth's rights over its near 

shore submerged lands is rooted in the distinction between the 'shoreline' and the 

'coastline'. While the term 'shoreline' denotes the low-water mark along the mainland, 

the term 'coastline' denotes the line of the outermost boundary of coastal features. U.S. v . 
-

• 

• 

Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 66-67, 80 S.Ct. 961, 997-998 (1960). Recognized coastal 

features, which are part of a coastal states 'coastline,' include: bays and harbors, U.S. v. 

Louisiana, 105 S.Ct. 1074, 470 U.S. 93 (1985); channels and sounds, U.S. v. Maine, 105 

S.Ct. 992,469 U.S. 504 (1985); and fringing islands. U.S. v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 85 

S.Ct. 1401 (1965). The paramountcy doctrine does not apply to the submerged lands 

underlying these coastal features, thus, the coastal state exercises complete dominion 

over these near shore submerged lands. United States v. California, 322 U.S. 19, 30-31, 

67 S.Ct. 1658, 1664 (1947)(discussing Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212, 1845 WL 

6003 (1845)). Therefore, all waters landward of the Commonwealth coastline are 

internal waters, and all submerged lands underlying those waters are held exclusively by 

the Commonwealth government in trust for the people of the Commonwealth. 

The Ninth Circuit decision acknowledges that the paramountcy doctrine does not apply to 

the Commonwealth's internal submerged lands, N.MI. v. U.S., at 1062, and thus the 

internal submerged lands are not affected by the submerged lands decisions. While the 

district court opinion discusses features of internal waters in dictum, 1 the Ninth Circuit 

decision affirmatively states: "We express no opinion as to the specific contours of the 

boundaries of these waters and we do not read the district court's opinion as doing so, 

either." N.MI. v. U.S. at 1067 (ftnt. 12). With the common understanding that near shore 

waters are held exclusively by the Commonwealth government, we shall turn our 

attention to determining more precise contours of the internal submerged lands 

underlying these waters . 

The term 'internal submerged lands' is not defined in either the Submerged Lands Act, 

43 U.S.C § 1301, et seq., or the Territorial Submerged Lands Act, 48 U.S.C. § 1704, et 

seq., though both Acts recognize that the rights of the United States begin seaward of 

inland waters. 43 U.S.C § 1301(c) and 48 U.S.C. § 1705(a) ("coastline" definition). The 

United States Supreme Court, in United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 85 S.Ct. 1401 

(1965), established a standard for determining the location of the state owned inland 

submerged lands when it ruled that: 

"Congress, in passing the [Submerged Lands] Act, left the responsibility for 

defining inland waters to this Court. . . . It is our opinion that we best fill our 

responsibility of giving content to the words which Congress employed by 

adopting the best and most workable definitions available. The Convention on 

the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, approved by the Senate and ratified 

by the President, provides such definitions. We adopt them for purposes of the 

Submerged Lands Act. This establishes a single coastline for both the 

administration of the Submerged Lands Act and the conduct of our future 

international relations." 

381 U.S. at 164-165, 85 S.Ct. at 1415-1416. 

In this case, the Supreme Court was referring to what is now known as the First United 

1 Northern Mariana Islands v. United States of America, No. Civ.A. 99-0028, 2003 WL 

22997235 (D.N.Mar.l. Aug. 7, 2003), at *19 and *20 . 
-

• 

• 

Nations Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. UNCLOS I, entered 

into force September 10, 1964, 15 U.S.T. 1606, 1964 WL 70232 (hereinafter, "UNCLOS 

I" or "the Convention"). Since the ratification of UNCLOS I, there have been two 

additional international conventions regarding the law of the sea, culminating most 

recently in the 1994 treaty commonly referred to as the Law of the Sea Treaty2 

(hereinafter "UN CLOS III" or "the Law of the Sea"). While the later treaty refined the 

definitions in regards to the coastlines of island states, UN CLOS I is the unequivocal law 

of the land for establishing the boundaries of the United States coastline and internal 

submerged lands. US. v. California, 381 U.S. at 165, 85 S.Ct. at 1416. 

The conceptual theme underlying the UNCLOS I definitions, and the court cases 

analyzing these definitions, is whether the free and direct travel of an internationally 

bound vessel could be impeded or restricted by a natural feature of a certain water body. 

If the answer to that query is 'yes', it is highly probable that the vessel has entered the 

'internal water' of a coastal state.3 While it would be an insurmountable task to provide 

2 The 1982 United States Convention on the Law of the Sea ("UN CLOS III" or "the Law of the 

Sea"), entered into force for all signing nations on November 16, 1994. UNCLOS III was 

approved by President Clinton and formally delivered to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent 

to ratify on October 7, 1994. S. TREATY Doc. No. 103-39. Aside from provisions in Part XI of 

UNCLOS III, which were amended in 1994 upon the insistence of the United States, every 

successive administration since President Reagan has supported ratification of the Law of the Sea. 

Accession to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and Ratification of the 1994 Agreement 

Amending Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention (Senate Treaty Document 103-3: Senate 

Executive Report 108-10) 108th Cong. (March 23, 2004)(Testimony of John F. Turner, Asst. Sec. 

of State, before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee). The Senate, however, has 

yet to act on this treaty proposal. 

Within months of the conclusion of 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, President Reagan 

proclaimed United States sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the 200 mile exclusive economic 

zone bordering all U.S. waters, including those contiguous to the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, in accordance with UNCLOS III. Proclamation No. 5030, 22 I.L.M. 461, 465 

(March 10, 1983). The Presidential Proclamation was preceded by a policy statement wherein it 

is stated: "[T]he United States is prepared to accept and act in accordance with international law 

as reflected in the results of the Law of the Sea Convention." United States Ocean Policy, 22 

I.L.M. 461,462 (March 10, 1983). 

Since UNCLOS III directly addresses the method of determining internal waters in island states, 

and since the United States has shown a consistent history of support for these definitions, the 

provisions of UNCLOS III are utilized for this analysis. Unlike the terms of UNCLOS I, 

howe"-eJ:, the definitional terms of UNCLOS III are not controlling and should only be read as 

secondary authority. 

3 Caution must be given that United States Coast Guard maps and other aids to navigation were 

not designed to demarcate the boundaries of coastal state jurisdiction and, thus, can not be used as 

prima facie evidence of the delineation of inland waters. US. v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 11, 35, 89 

S.Ct. 773, 778 (1969) (quoting, 18 Fed.Reg. 7893 (1953)("The establishment of descriptive lines 

of demarcation is solely for purposes connected with navigation and shipping .... These lines are 

not for the purpose of defining Federal or State boundaries ... ")). 
-

• 

• 

an exact description of the contours of the Commonwealth internal waters within this 

Opinion, broad categories of internal waters that are commonly found within the 

Commonwealth - with examples - are described below: 

a) Fringing Reefs, Lagoons, and other Shallows 

The vast majority of the Commonwealth coastline consists of coral reef complexes. As a 

general rule, all 'low tide elevations' - those reefs, shoals, and rocks that are uncovered at 

low tide - and all waters landward of the low tide elevations are included in a State's 

internal waters. United States v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 11, 47, 89 S.Ct. 773, 793 (1969). 

This rule comes directly from Article 11 of the Convention: 

"A low-tide elevation is a naturally-formed area of land which is surrounded by 

and above water at low-tide but submerged at high tide. Where a low-tide 

• elevation is situated wholly or partly at a distance not exceeding the breadth of the 

territorial sea from the mainland or an island, the low-water line on that elevation 

may be used as the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea." 

UNCLOS I, Art. 11 1 1. 

Under this rule, it is clear that large protected waters of the Commonwealth, such as the 

Saipan Lagoon, and the miles of coastline protected by visible coral reefs are all internal 

waters. This outcome conforms to the conceptual framework of the Convention - what 

we may call a mariner's rule of thumb - as a vessel traveling internationally would have 

to avoid all low tide elevations to continue unimpeded. Therefore, the submerged lands 

underlying these waters are exclusively held by the Commonwealth. United States v. 

California, 322 U.S. 19, 30, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1664 (1947) (State exercises complete 

dominion over internal waters). 

According to the mariner's rule of thumb, coastlines should also be avoided where coral 

reefs remain below the surface at low tide yet the shallow waters still pose a risk to travel. 

There is some support in the law that coastal waters that are too shallow for navigation, 

but 'navigable waters' in the legal sense, may also be included in a State's inventory of 

internal waters. In United States v. California, the Supreme Court cited Louisiana's 

Chandler and Brenton Sounds as examples of six to twelve foot deep waters that were 

found to be internal waters partly on the basis that they were too shallow to be readily 

navigable. 381 U.S. at 171, 85 S.Ct. at 1419. The latest revisions to the Law of the Sea, 

which are only secondary authority for this question, recognize that all waters landward 

of fringing reefs are internal waters of island states. UNCLOS III, Art. 6. Additional 

authority for the inclusion of all closely associated fringing reefs in the inventory of 

internal waters can be found in the analysis of a coastal state's historic bays, which is 

discussed below. 

Therefore, there is absolute unquestionable authority that all waters and underlying 

submerged lands extending landward from the outer low tide mark of any exposed reef, 

shoal, or rock is included in the Commonwealth's inventory of internal submerged lands. 

UNCLOS III provides persuasive authority that all closely associated fringing reefs 
I 

I 

should be included in the Commonwealth's inventory of internal waters. The historic bay 

discussion, found below, provides solid primary authority for the recognition of the 

Commonwealth's shallow fringing reefs as internal waters. 

b) Juridical Bays and Historic Bays 

The Convention recognizes two types of coastal indentations that may be recognized as 

'internal waters' of a coastal state: juridical bays and historic bays. Juridical bays are culde-sac type indentations in a coastline that, when meeting specific criteria, are 

automatically included in a coastal state's inventory of internal waters. Historic bays, as 

the name implies, are those that have been recognized over time as belonging to the 

coastal state. 

To be recognized as a juridical bay, the Convention requires that the outline of the bay 

must be shaped like a semi-circle. The semi-circle test, in full, is: 

"[A] bay is a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to 

the width of its mouth as to contain landlocked waters and constitute more than a 

mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however, be regarded as a 

bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose 

diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation." 

UNCLOS I, Art. 7 ,i 2. 

Saipan's Laulau Bay and Rota's Sasanhaya Bay are examples of semi-circle shaped bays. 

If a line were drawn across the natural entrance point of either bay, the resulting shape of 

the water body would be a semi-circle. As such, both bays would be recognized under 

the Convention as juridical bays and internal water waters of the Commonwealth. When 

that is the case, the Convention instructs: 

"If the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a 

bay does not exceed twenty-four miles, a closing line may be drawn between 

these two low-water marks, and the waters enclosed thereby shall be considered 

as internal waters." 

UNCLOS I, Art. 7 ,i 4. 

Therefore, the semi-circle shaped bays in the Commonwealth, such as Saipan's Laulau 

Bay and Rota's Sasanhaya Bay, are unquestionably internal waters and fall within the 

exclusive dominion of the Commonwealth government. 

The Convention also recognizes certain bodies of waters, referred to as 'historic bays,' 

that are so closely associated with a particular coastline that they must be included in a 

coastal state's internal waters. UNCLOS I, Art. 7, ,i 6. A 'historic bay' may be any shape 

and the term can be used interchangeably with 'historic inland waters.' United States v. 

Louisiana ("Alabama & Mississippi Boundary Case'') 470 U.S. 93, 102, 105 S.Ct. 1074, 

1080 ( 1985). Being that all waters located landward of low-tide elevations - those reefs, 
-

• 

-

shoals, and rocks exposed at low tide - are 'inland waters' according to the Convention, 

UNCLOS I, Art. 11, ,r 1, the following discussion regarding historic bays pertain only to 

those waters overlying near-shore shallow reefs seaward of low-tide elevations. 

Examples of these shallow reefs include the lengths of coastline on the northwest side of 

Tinian, which have no exposed reef even at low tide, and the abundant coral complexes 

located seaward of the reef flat at Saipan's Obyan Beach. 

Although the off-shore extent of historic internal waters may extend beyond waters ten 

fathoms (sixty feet) deep, this opinion limits its analysis to waters up to ten fathoms 4 as 

these waters are unquestionably historic internal waters, as set forth below. Because the 

Mariana Archipelago is bordered on both sides by a trough, without any continental shelf, 

depths of ten fathoms are normally reached within no more than one-quarter mile (1320 

feet) from any low-tide elevation or exposed shoreline. The recognition of these shallow 

coastal waters as historic internal waters also fits within the overall framework of the 

Convention - the mariner's rule of thumb- since internationally bound vessels could not 

pass unaided within one-quarter mile of any Mariana Island shore without risk of running 

aground on an unseen shallow. 

While the term 'historic bay' is not defined by the Convention, the Supreme Court has 

stated that a historic bay is a body of water "over which a coastal nation has traditionally 

asserted and maintained dominion with the acquiescence of foreign nations." United 

States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 172, 85 S.Ct. 1401, 1419 (1965). The CNMI formally 

asserted dominion over its internal waters through the Marine·sovereignty Act of 1980, 2 

C.M.C. § 1101, et seq., by claiming all waters that "surround each island or group of 

islands, including any reef system, lagoon, or bay." 2 C.M.C. § 1122. The 

Commonwealth's assertion of dominion over its internal waters is not challenged by the 

international community. 

Recognizing that an international standard is being used for the resolution of domestic 

disputes, the Supreme Court has clarified that "actions of local governments, if not 

repudiated by or inimical to the interests of the national sovereign, are assertions of 

dominion as against other nations." United States v. Louisiana ("Louisiana Boundary 

Case';, 394 U.S. 11, at 76, n. 103, 89 S.Ct. 773, 809 (1969). Aside from the Marine 

Sovereignty Act, the Commonwealth government has repeatedly asserted dominion over 

its coastal waters to protect a primary food source for its people. The Fair Fishing Act 

most clearly evidences the Commonwealth's assertion of exclusive control over all 

coastal waters to the depth of at least ten fathoms. 2 C.M.C. § 5631, et seq. By 

prohibiting all non-traditional fishing methods in coastal waters, Id., fishing grounds are 

limited to waters that may be reached without the use artificial breathing assistance -

approximately ten fathoms - and harvests are limited to what can be collected using 

traditional skills. This restriction not only provides food for families, it allows the 

citizens of the Commonwealth to oversee and act as stewards of their resources. Id. 

4 There are arguments for and against the inclusion of waters at depths greater than ten fathoms in the 

Commonwealth's inventory of internal waters. However, this opinion limits its discussions to this depth 

since ten fathoms nears the limits that a person can spearfish using traditional methods (unassisted by 

artificial breathing devices). Therefore, historic usage of waters to ten fathoms is unquestionable. 
• 

• 

(Commission Comment,§ 2). The asserted dominion over the near-shore waters is clear, 

unchallenged, and does not harm national interests; therefore, the Commonwealth has 

made a clear showing of historic title to its near-shore waters to a depth often fathoms. 

In the Alabama & Mississippi Boundary Case, the Supreme Court stated that a coastal 

state's claim to a historic bay can be fortified by a showing of the usage of the near shore 

waters over time. United States v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 93, 106, 105 S.Ct. 1074, 1082 

(1985). The near shore coastal waters of the Commonwealth, to the depths of ten 

fathoms, have been utilized for centuries. These waters not only provide a primary 

source of food protein and supply items for local commerce and trade, the waters are also 

inextricably linked to the historical and cultural identity of the people of the Northern 

Marianas. The traditional recognition that the near shore water to a depth of at least ten 

fathoms is so closely linked to the geographic configuration, economic interests, and 

community cohesiveness that it is vitally important to the Commonwealth. As such, 

these near shore waters cannot be severed from the island geography and confirms that 

the Commonwealth has valid claim to historic title of near-shore waters to the depth of 

ten fathoms. 

Therefore, the Commonwealth maintains title over all permanently submerged lands to a 

depth of ten fathoms (sixty feet), as historic bays, through the continual use and assertion 

of dominion over the submerged lands and overlying waters and resources. 

c) Protected Harbors 

Each of the Commonwealth harbors is located landward of exposed coral reefs and 

within waters that are less than ten fathoms deep; therefore they are already included 

within the Commonwealth's inventory of exclusively held internal waters. However, the 

Convention also provides a separate article for the inclusion of harbors as internal waters: 

"[T]he outermost permanent harbour works which form an integral part of the 

harbour system shall be regarded as forming part of the coast." 

UNCLOS I, Article 8. 

The Supreme Court has noted that the permanent structures protecting the harbor may be 

man made or naturally formed. Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U.S. 11, 51, 89 S.Ct. 773, 

796 (1969). In fact, it has been noted that this particular authorization for inclusion as an 

internal water was made without qualification. United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 

175, 85 S.Ct. 1401, 1421(1965). Therefore, the marinas and harbors of the 

Commonwealth, to the extent of the outermost permanent feature of each, must be 

included in the Commonwealth's inventory of internal waters. 

It must be noted that -the Convention also addresses open roadsteads, such as the area 

where the pre-position ships anchor off the coast of Saipan. These areas are to be 

included in the territorial sea, UNCLOS I, Art. 9, and "[b]y implication, they are not to be 

considered inland waters." United States v. California, 381 U.S. at 175, 85 S.Ct. at 1421. 

Therefore, the area outside Saipan's Lagoon and other similarly situated deep-water open 
-

• 

• 

anchorages may not be included in the Commonwealth's inventory of internal waters. 

d) Inter-Island Channels 

The Marine Sovereignty Act specifically claims as internal waters of the Commonwealth 

"[t]he waters between Tinian and Aguiguan and between Tinian and Saipan." 2 C.M.C. § 

1122. In the Alabama & Mississippi Boundary Case, the Supreme Court explains at 

length the policy of the United States to enclose as inland waters all islands "that were so 

closely grouped that no entrance exceeded 10 geographic miles." 470 U.S. 93, 107, 105 

S.Ct. 1074, 1082 (1985). Being that the United States has consistently maintained this 

adopted policy in domestic and international relations, it remains bound to this official 

position in regards to disputes over submerged lands. Id., 470 U.S. at 110, 105 S.Ct. at 

1084. Therefore, the waters between Tinian and Aguiguan and between Tinian and 

Saipan are included within the inventory of the Commonwealth's internal waters. 

Wherefore, the inventory of the Commonwealth's internal waters - and underlying 

submerged lands - include: 1) all waters landward of any low-tide elevations, which 

specifically include the Saipan Lagoon and all waters between the shoreline and any reef 

outcropping exposed at low tide, UN CLOS I, Art. 11 ,i 1; 2) all semi-circle shaped bays, 

which specifically include Laulau Bay and Sasanhaya Bay, UNCLOS I, Art. 7 ,i 2; 3) all 

historic inland waters measured to a depth of ten fathoms (sixty feet), which includes all 

shallow waters seaward of low-tide elevations and exposed coastlines, UN CLOS I, Art . 

7, ,i 6; 4) all protected harbors measured to the outermost man-made or natural 

permanent feature, which specifically include Rota's East and West Harbors, Tinian 

Harbor, and Saipan's marina and port system, UNCLOS I, Article 8; and 5) both Saipan 

Channel and Tinian Channel. Alabama & Mississippi Boundary Case, 470 U.S. 93, 105 

S.Ct. 1074 (1985). As internal waters, the Commonwealth exercises complete dominion 

over these waters and associated submerged lands for the benefit of its citizens. United 

States v. California, 322 U.S. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658 (1947). 

2) Territorial or Marginal Sea 

International law recognizes that a nation may exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over 

a territorial sea in order to forbid non-innocent passage of vessels near a nation's 

coastline5• UNCLOS I, Art. 16, ,r I; UNCLOS III, Art. 25, ,r 1. The United States 

~Thelaw of-the,sea-r-ecogn-izesthat-nati-0ns-may--deiineate-coastlines by claiming coastal features 

and configurations or by declaring straight baselines and publishing them for recognition by the 

international community. UNCLOS I, Art. 4, ,i 1; and UNCLOS III, Art. 7, ,i 1. The Marine 

Sovereignty Act adopted a straight baseline method for the demarcation the Commonwealth 

coastline. 2 C.M.C. § 1123. Since national defense and security is the purpose of the 

establishment of a territorial sea, "the choice under the Convention to use the straight baseline 

method for determining inland waters claimed against other nations is one that rests with the 

Federal Government, and not with the individual States." United States v. California, 381 U.S. 

139, 168, 85 S.Ct. 1401, 1417 (1965). The United States has consistently chosen to delineate its 
-

-

-

formally claimed a three-mile wide marginal belt as its territorial sea in 1793. United 

States v. California, 322 U.S. 19, 32 at ftnt 16, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1665 (1947). While the 

United States historically maintained dominion over its territorial sea, the states have 

always been authorized to exercise local police power functions within the marginal belt. 

Id., 322 U.S. at 36, 67 S.Ct. at 1667. 

Congress passed the Submerged Lands Act in 1953, which transferred title over all lands 

and natural resources underlying the territorial sea to the individual coastal states. 43 

U.S.C.§1311. Following the closing of the Third Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 

United States extended its territorial sea to twelve nautical miles beyond its coastline. 

Proclamation No. 5928, 3 C.F.R. 547 (1988), reprinted in 43 U.S.C.A. 1331. The 

subsequent expansion of United States territorial sea has had no effect on any state's 

rights over their individual claims to submerged lands. United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 

1, 9-10, 117 S.Ct. 1888, 1894 (1997). 

Congress has similarly transferred title to the three-mile marginal sea surrounding the 

territories of Guam, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. 48 U.S.C. § 1705. Until such 

time as Congress acts to provide the Commonwealth with title to the land underlying its 

marginal sea, the Commonwealth's interest in these submerged lands will remain inferior 

to the federal rights. N.MI. v United States, 399 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Wherefore, in the absence of a Congressional act transferring title to these submerged 

lands, the Commonwealth: 1) retains its local police powers within the three-mile 

marginal belt surrounding each of its islands, United States v. California, 322 U.S. 19, 

36, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1667; and 2) holds an executory interest in the ownership of a threemile marginal belt surrounding each of the Mariana Islands. N.MI. v United States, 399 

F.3d 1057, 1065-66 ("the CNMI is entitled to the same interest in the seaward submerged 

lands as that of the states when they submitted to the sovereignty of the United States"). 

3) High Seas 

In 1953, Congress passed the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act which declared 

ownership of "all submerged lands lying seaward and outside of [the territorial sea], and 

of which the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States." 43 U.S.C. § 1331(a). 

After the closing of the Third Convention on the Law of the Sea, President Reagan 

proclaimed that United States' sovereign rights over these submerged lands extended 200 

nautical miles beyond the coasts of the United States. Proclamation 5030 (March 10, 

1983), 22 l.L.M. 461. President Reagan's exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction 

included a claim to the submerged lands and waters within the exclusive economic zone 

surrounding the Northern Mariana Islands. Id. at 465. 

coastline by delineation around coastal features and configurations, rather than use the straight 

baseline method. See e.g., Id.; Louisiana Boundary Case, 394 U.S., at 72-73, 89 S.Ct., at 806-807; 

Alabama & Mississippi Boundary Case, 470 U.S. 93, 99, 105 S.Ct. 1074, 1078. 
I 

• 

While the United States holds exclusive title over the submerged lands extending from its 

territorial seas to the reaches of its exclusive economic zones, the Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act declares that the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent State, which are not 

inconsistent with other Federal laws and regulations, are the laws of the United States' 

high seas. 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(2)(A). However, the provisions of the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act do not apply to United States territories and insular possessions. 43 

U.S.C. § 1301(g)("The term 'State' means any State of the Union."). 

The Territorial Submerged Lands Act, 48 U.S.C. § 1704, et seq., is completely silent in 

regard to the respective exclusive economic zones of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and 

American Samoa. Thus, these jurisdictions enjoy no rights over their respective 

exclusive economic zones. 

As recognized in the Marine Sovereignty Act, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands 

have traditionally been a seafaring people and are dependant on the resources of the sea 

for their economic, social, and political survival and growth. 2 C.M.C. § 111 l(a) and (b). 

In order to properly conserve, protect, and manage the resources located within the 

Commonwealth's adjacent exclusive economic zone - and maintain equal-footing with 

the various states of the union - the Commonwealth requires legal authority over the high 

seas located in its adjacent exclusive economic zone. 

Wherefore, the Commonwealth presently retains no rights whatsoever in the exclusive 

economic zone surrounding the archipelago, which was claimed by the United States in 

1983. Any act of Congress granting the Commonwealth title and exclusive regulatory 

authority over its territorial sea must also include provisions that recognize the concurrent 

civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Commonwealth over the exclusive economic zone. 

CONCLUSION 

For all the foregoing reasons, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has exclusive authority over its internal 

waters, as described herein. The Commonwealth retains the authority to exercise its 

police powers within the three-mile wide territorial sea extending seaward from its 

internal waters. And, presently, the Commonwealth retains no authority over the 

exclusive economic zone surrounding the archipelago. 

Dated: April __ , 2007 

MATTHEW T. GREGORY 
• 

• 

399 F .3d 1057 Page 1 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

(Cite as: 399 F.3d 1057) 

H 

Briefs and Other Related Documents 

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. 

Commonwealth of the NORTHERN MARIANA 

ISLANDS, Plaintiff-counter-claim-defendantAppellant, 

v. 

UNITED ST A TES of America, Defendant-counterclaimant-Appellee. 

No. 03-16556. 

Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2004. 

Filed Feb. 24, 2005. 

Background: Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI) filed quiet title action 

against the United States, requesting declaratory and 

injunctive relief to establish the CNMI as the owner 

of the submerged lands off the CNMI's shores. The 

United States counterclaimed on the title dispute and 

further sought a judgment decreeing two laws passed 

by the CNMI legislature to be unenforceable 

assertions of the Commonwealth's ownership of the 

submerged lands. The United States District Court 

for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands, Alex 

R. Munson, Chief Judge, 2003 WL 22997235, 

entered summary judgment in favor of the United 

States, and the CNMI appealed. 

3Holding: The Court of Appeals, Beezer, Circuit 

Judge, held that United States acquired paramount 

rights to submerged lands off the CNMI's shores as a 

function of sovereignty. 

Affirmed. 

West Headnotes 

ill Navigable Waters 270 C=:>36(1) 

270 Navigable Waters 

270II Lands Under Water 

270k36 Ownership and Control in General 

270k36(1) k. Ownership by State. Most 

Cited Cases 

Paramountcy doctrine, which dictates that national 

government has paramount rights to submerged lands 

off the shores of states, is not limited merely to 

disputes between the national and state governments. 

ill Navigable Waters 270 C=:>36(1) 

270 Navigable Waters 

270II Lands Under Water 

270k36 Ownership and Control in General 

270k36(1) k. Ownership by State. Most 

Cited Cases 

Navigable Waters 270 C=:>36(3) 

270 Navigable Waters 

270II Lands Under Water 

270k36 Ownership and Control in General 

270k36(3) k. Land Between High and Low 

Water Marks, Tide Lands, and Flats. Most Cited 

Cases 

Paramountcy doctrine, which dictates that national 

government has paramount rights to submerged lands 

off the shores of states, does not apply to land under 

inland navigable waters such as rivers, harbors, and 

even tidelands down to the low water mark. 

ill Navigable Waters 270 C=:>36(1) 

270 Navigable Waters 

270U Lands Under Water 

270k36 Ownership and Control in General 

270k36(1) k. Ownership by State. Most 

Cited Cases 

Through a covenant pursuant to which 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

(CNMI) agreed to United States sovereignty and 

received protection and security and other benefits in 

return, United States acquired paramount rights to 

submerged lands off the CNMI's shores as a function 

of sovereignty; absent express indication to the 

contrary, the ownership of seaward submerged lands 

accompanied United States sovereignty under 

paramountcy doctrine. 

West CodenotesPreempted2 N. Mar. I.Code § § 

1201-12312 N. Mar. I.Code§§ 1101-1143 

*1058 James D. Livingstone, Assistant Attorney 

General, Saipan, MP, for the plaintiff-counter-claimdefendant/appellant. 

David C. Shilton, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for the defendant-counterclaimant/appellee . 

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
• 

• 

399 F.3d 1057 Page2 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

(Cite as: 399 F.3d 1057) 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of the Northern Mariana Islands, Alex R. 

Munson, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 

CV-99-00028-ARM. 

Before BEEZER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit 

Judges. 

BEEZER, Circuit Judge. 

This appeal addresses ownership rights to the 

submerged lands off the shores of the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

[hereinafter "CNMI" or "Commonwealth"]. The 

CNMI filed this quiet title action against the United 

States, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief to 

establish the CNMI as the owner of the submerged 

lands underlying the "internal," "archipelagic," and 

"territorial" waters adjacent to the Commonwealth. 

The United States counterclaimed on the title dispute 

and further sought a judgment decreeing two laws 

passed by the CNMI legislature to be unenforceable 

assertions of the Commonwealth's ownership of the 

submerged lands. 

The district court entered summary judgment in favor 

of the United States. The CNMI now appeals. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

I 

The CNMI is a commonwealth government 

comprised of sixteen islands in the West Pacific. FNI 

Through a Covenant agreement with the United 

States, the CNMI is under the sovereignty of the 

United States but retains the "right of local selfgovernment." Covenant to Establish a 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 

Political Union with the United States of America § § 

101, 103, *1059Pub.L. No. 94-241, 90 Stat. 263 

(1976), reprinted in 48 U.S.C. § 1801 note 

[hereinafter "Covenant"]. As in previous opinions, 

see, e.g., United States ex rel. Richards v. De Leon 

Guerrero. 4 F.3d 749, 751-52 (9th Cir.1993), we 

briefly summarize below the history of the 

relationship between the United States and the people 

of the islands included in the Commonwealth in order 

to provide the legal background for this lawsuit. 

FNl. The Northern Marianas are in the same 

geographic chain of islands as Guam (which 

is the "Southern" Mariana). Stanley K. 

Laughlin, Jr., The Law of United States 

Territories and Affiliated Jurisdictions § 

21.l (1995). 

A 

Following World War II, the United Nations 

established the "Trust Territory of the Pacific 

Islands" [hereinafter "TTPI"] over Micronesian 

islands in the Pacific. The United States "was not a 

sovereign over, but a trustee for the [TTPI]." Wabol 

v. Villacrusis. 958 F.2d 1450, 1458 (9th Cir.1992). 

The "paramount duty of the United States was to 

steward Micronesia to self government." Temengil v. 

Trust Territorv ofthe Pacific Islands. 881 F.2d 647, 

649 (9th Cir.1989) (discussing Trusteeship 

Agreement for the Former Japanese Mandated 

Islands, July 18, 1947, United States-United Nations, 

art. 6, 61 Stat. 3301, T.I.A.S. No. 1665). Inhabitants 

of the TTPI formed a Congress in 1965 to discuss the 

future political alignment of the islands. See Stanley 

K. Laughlin, Jr., The Law of United States Territories 

and Affiliated Jurisdictions § 22.3 (1995). 

Representatives from one sub-group of islands, the 

Northern Marianas, favored establishing closer ties 

with the United States than representatives from the 

other islands. Ultimately, a delegation from the 

Northern Marianas entered into independent 

negotiations with the United States. The Covenant 

formed out of those talks. In 1975, the Northern 

Mariana Islands legislature unanimously approved 

the Covenant and 78.8% of voters in the Northern 

Marianas ratified the agreement in a plebiscite vote. 

See De Leon Guerrero. 4 F.3d at 751. Congress 

enacted the Covenant into law in 1976. Pub.L. No. 

94-241, 90 Stat. 263 (I 976). 

The Covenant's ten articles detail the political 

relationship between the United States and the 

CNMI. Of particular relevance here is Article I. In 

addition to guaranteeing the Commonwealth the right 

of local self-government under the sovereignty of the 

United States, see Covenant § § 101, 103, Article I 

provides that the Covenant, "together with those 

provisions of the Constitution, treaties, and laws of 

the United States applicable to the Northern Mariana 

Islands, will be the supreme law of the Northern 

Mariana Islands." Id. § 102. Article I also 

establishes that the United States has "complete 

responsibility for and authority with respect to 

matters relating to foreign affairs and defense." Id. § 

104. 

Articles V, VIII and X of the Covenant also play 

central roles in this dispute. Pursuant to Article V, 

only certain provisions within the United States 

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
-

• 

• 

399 F.3d 1057 Page 3 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

(Cite as: 399 F.3d 1057) 

Constitution and other federal laws are applicable to 

the Commonwealth. See id. § § 501, 502. Article 

VIII addresses distribution of "Property" within the 

Northern Marianas. In relevant part, Section 801 

specifies that: 

All right, title, and interest of the Government of the 

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands in and to real 

property in the Northern Mariana Islands on the date 

of the signing of this Covenant or thereafter acquired 

in any manner whatsoever will, no later than upon the 

termination of the Trusteeship Agreement, be 

transferred to the Government of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. 

Finally, Article X controls how and when the 

provisions of the Covenant come into force. Id. § 

1003. Some provisions, including Section 80I's 

transfer of property, became effective immediately 

upon the Covenant's approval. See id. § 1003(a). 

*1060 Others, such as the right to local selfgovernment, id. § 103, required the additional 

approval of the Covenant's Constitution, which 

occurred in 1978. See id. § 1003(b); Temengil, 881 

F.2d at 650. The remainder became effective after 

the official termination of the trusteeship in 1986. 

See Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731, 733-34 (9th 

Cir.2004), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 125 S.Ct. 1313, -

-- L.Ed.2d ----, 73 U.S.L.W. 3355 (2005) (No. 04-

774). Included in this last category are the 

provisions establishing United States sovereignty and 

authority over foreign affairs and defense of the 

Commonwealth. Covenant§§ 101, 104. 

B 

The CNMI brought this action under the Quiet Title 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, requesting a declaration that 

the Commonwealth holds title to, or for an order 

mandating that the United States quitclaim any 

interests in, the submerged lands "underlying the 

internal waters, archipelagic waters, and territorial 

waters adjacent to the Northern Mariana Islands." 

The CNMI further requested the court to enjoin the 

United States from claiming ownership of the 

submerged lands. The United States counterclaimed. 

~--Aiter.esulutiorrufsome-procedural-hurdles;·ENi ·both 

parties filed for summary judgment. The district 

court granted the United States' motion, declaring 

that the "United States possesses paramount rights in 

and powers over the waters extending seaward of the 

ordinary low water mark of the Commonwealth 

Coast and the lands, minerals, and other things of 

value underlying such waters." FN3 The court also 

declared that the CNMl's Marine Sovereignty Act of 

1980, 2 N. Mar. I.Code§§ 1101-1143 (1999), and 

Submerged Lands Act, 2 N. Mar. I.Code§ § 1201-

1231 (1999), were preempted by federal law. This 

appeal followed. 

FN2. The CNMI filed two "largely 

identical" actions, one in 1997 and the 

present suit in 1999. The 1997 action did 

not comply with provisions of the Quiet 

Title Act applicable only to states; the 

present 1999 action did. In Northern 

Mariana Island5 v. United States, 279 F.3d 

1070, 1071 {9th Cir.2002). we held that 

because the CNMI must be treated as if it 

were a state for purposes of the Quiet Title 

Act, the CNMI qualified for the state 

exemption to the Act's time-bar provision. 

FN3. The district court did "not address 

[the] aspect of the Commonwealth's 

complaint" involving submerged lands 

under "internal" waters because the United 

States did not contest ownership of these 

submerged lands. Northern Mariana 

Islands v. United States. 2003 WL 

22997235, at *15 n. 16 (2003) (order 

granting United States' motion for summary 

judgment). We likewise limit our analysis 

to the submerged lands addressed by the 

district court's summary judgment. 

II 

We review de novo the district court's decision to 

grant or deny summary judgment. Olsen v. Idaho 

State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 {9th Cir.2004) 

(reviewing grant of summary judgment); Lee v. 

Gregmy. 363 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir.2004) 

(reviewing an appealable denial of summary 

judgment). Summary judgment is proper when, 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party, there are no genuine issues of 

material fact and the court determines that the district 

court correctly applied the substantive law. Olsen. 

363 F.3d at 922. We may affirm on any ground 

~----supported by the record. Id. 

The district court properly granted summary 

judgment to the United States on the basis of the 

federal paramountcy doctrine. This doctrine 

instructs that the United States, as a "function of 

national external sovereignty," acquires "paramount 

rights" over seaward submerged *1061 lands. United 

States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 34, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
• 

399 F.3d 1057 Page4 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

(Cite as: 399 F.3d 1057) 

91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947). Because the United States did 

not expressly cede its paramount rights to the 

submerged lands at issue here, summary judgment in 

favor of the United States was proper. 

A 

We discussed the origins of the paramountcy doctrine 

in Native Village of Evak v. Trawler Diane Marie, 

Inc .• 154 F.3d 1090, 1092-95 {9th Cir.1998) (Eyak I 

). We briefly review that history here. The 

Supreme Court established the paramountcy doctrine 

through a series of cases between the federal 

government and shoreline states. In California, the 

Court held that the national government had 

paramount rights to submerged lands off the shores 

of states created from former United States 

territories. 332 U.S. at 38. 67 S.Ct. 1658. The Court 

based its decision on theories of national interest and 

defense, concluding that because the sea had 

customarily been within the realm of international 

Jaw, the federal government had an overriding 

interest in maintaining authority over these areas that 

were subject to international dispute and settlement. 

Id at 34-36, 67 S.Ct. 1658. As the Court explained a 

few years later in United States v. Louisiana 339 

U.S. 699, 704, 70 S.ct. 914, 94 L.Ed. 1216 {1950): 

The marginal sea is a national, not a state concern. 

National interests, national responsibilities, national 

concerns are involved. The problems of commerce, 

national defense, relations with other powers, war 

and peace focus there. National rights must 

therefore be paramount in that area. 

The Supreme Court has extended this doctrine to 

apply, presumably, to all coastal states. In United 

States v. Texas. 339 U.S. 707, 717-19, 70 S.Ct. 918, 

94 L.Ed. 1221 (1950), the Court held on the basis of 

"equal footing" and national interest principles that 

even a state previously possessing both "dominium " 

(ownership) and "imperium " (governmental powers 

and sovereignty) over its marginal sea as an 

independent sovereign lost that authority upon entry 

into the Union. See id. at 719, 70 S.Ct. 918 

("[A]lthough dominium and imperium are normally 

separable and separate, this is an instance where 

property interests are so subordinated to the rights of 

sovereignty as to follow sovereignty.") (footnote 

omitted). A quarter-century later, the Court again 

invoked national interest principles to establish in 

United States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515, 519. 95 S.Ct. 

115 5, 4 3 L.Ed.2d 363 {197 5). that the federal 

government had paramount rights to submerged lands 

off the coasts of even Atlantic states that claimed to 

be successors in title to the original colonies. FN4 

FN4. Connecticut was not a defendant in 

Maine, "apparently because that State 

borders on Long Island Sound, which is 

considered inland water rather than open 

sea." Maine. 420 U.S. at 517 n. 1, 95 S.Ct. 

1155. 

ill Although the Supreme Court's paramountcy 

decisions all involved states as parties, "the 

paramountcy doctrine is not limited merely to 

disputes between the national and state 

governments." Evak I. 154 F.3d at 1095. We held 

in Eyak I that a claim of exclusive aboriginal title to 

submerged lands was inconsistent with the 

paramountcy doctrine. FNs We reasoned that *1062 

"[a]ny claim of sovereign right or title over the ocean 

by any party other than the United States, including 

Indian tribes, is equally repugnant to the principles 

established in the paramountcy cases." Id. 

FN5. We granted initial en bane hearing of 

the appeal in the subsequent litigation in 

Eyak Native Village. Evak Native Vill. v. 

Daley, 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.2004). The 

en bane panel vacated the district court's 

grant of summary judgment and remanded 

with instructions, while retammg 

jurisdiction over all future proceedings 

related to that litigation. Eyak Native Vil!. v. 

Dalev. 375 F.3d 1218 {9th Cir.2004) (en 

bane) (Eyak II). The en bane proceedings 

left undisturbed this court's decision in Eyak 

L 

ill The national interest principles that support the 

paramountcy doctrine do provide some limitation on 

its scope. The doctrine does not apply to land under 

"inland navigable waters such as rivers, harbors, and 

even tidelands down to the low water mark." 

California. 332 U.S. at 30, 67 S.Ct. 1658 (discussing 

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan. 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 1 i 

L.Ed. 565 (] 845)). This limitation reflects the 

different concerns present with "internal" and 

"external" submerged lands: the state interest 

diminishes, and the national interests increases, as the 

land in question moves further into the open sea. 

See id. at 29-35, 67 S.Ct. 1658. 

B 

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
• 

• 

• 

399 F.3d 1057 Page5 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

(Cite as: 399 F.3d 1057) 

ill Allegiance to the paramountcy doctrine compels 

us to begin with the presumption that the United 

States acquired paramount rights to the disputed 

submerged lands off the CNMI's shores as a function 

of sovereignty. As we have held in Eyak l the 

underlying principles of this doctrine apply "with 

equal force" to relationships other than that between 

states and the federal government. 154 F.3d at 1096. 

Through the Covenant, the Commonwealth agreed to 

United States sovereignty and received (among other 

benefits) protection and security in return. As the 

Court recognized in California, the United States' 

foreign affairs obligations demand that the national 

government have authority to control areas of 

national concern. See 332 U.S. at 35-36. 67 S.Ct. 

1658. Absent an express indication to the contrary, 

we will not presume the parties intended a different 

arrangement here. 

The CNMI principally challenges the reliance on the 

paramountcy cases for two reasons. FN6 First, the 

Commonwealth contends that the paramountcy 

doctrine is inconsistent with the Covenant's 

limitations on the application of federal law to the 

CNMI. Second, the CNMI argues alternatively that 

the Covenant's transfer of real property creates a 

"recognized exception" to the paramountcy doctrine. 

We disagree on both counts. 

FN6. We are unpersuaded by the 

Commonwealth's other arguments as well. 

We do not reach whether the CNMI 

government may properly raise an 

aboriginal title claim on behalf of its native 

inhabitants because our decision in Eyak I 

forecloses an aboriginal title challenge to 

our paramountcy holding. See 154 F .3d at 

1095-97. We also refuse to extend common 

Jaw trust principles to an international 

agreement that constituted, on the part of the 

people of the Northern Mariana Islands, "a 

sovereign act of self-determination." See 

Covenant pmbl. 

------~1------~---~----

The CNMI first asserts that the unique relationship 

between the United States and the CNMI makes the 

paramountcy doctrine inapplicable. According to 

the CNMI, federal Jaw applies to the Commonwealth 

only to the extent that it is consistent with the 

Covenant. The CNMI argues that because the 

rationale for the paramountcy doctrine is based on 

foreign commerce, foreign affairs, and national 

defense powers found within the United States 

Constitution, the doctrine cannot apply to the CNMI 

because the Covenant does not expressly provide the 

United States with this same constitutional authority 

over the Commonwealth. 

We do not dispute that " 'the authority of the United 

States towards the CNMI *1063 arises solely under 

the Covenant.' " Sagana. 384 F.3d at 734 (quoting 

Hillblom v. United States. 896 F.2d 426, 429 (9th 

Cir.1990)). But the CNMI's argument wrongly 

assumes that the paramountcy doctrine and the 

Covenant are inconsistent. The paramountcy 

doctrine draws its authority from the inherent 

obligations placed on the sovereign governing entity 

to conduct international affairs and control matters of 

national concern. See California, 332 U.S. at 35-36, 

67 S.Ct. 1658; see also Evak I. 154 F.3d at 1096 

("This principle applies with equal force to all 

entities claiming rights to the ocean[.]"). The 

Covenant unquestionably places these powers and 

obligations in the United States. See Covenant § 

101 (establishing a Commonwealth "in political 

union with and under the sovereignty of the United 

States of America"); id. § 104 (providing the United 

States with "complete responsibility for and authority 

with respect to matters relating to foreign affairs and 

defense"). The CNMI's attempt to differentiate 

between a paramountcy doctrine based on powers 

found solely in the United States Constitution and 

one that is incorporated through the Covenant 

separates the doctrine from its rationale. 

" '[O]nce low-water mark is passed the international 

domain is reached.' " Evak I. 154 F.3d at 1094 

(quoting Texas. 339 U.S. at 719, 70 S.Ct. 918). The 

submerged lands addressed by the district court's 

summary judgment fit this description. Because the 

Covenant places sovereignty and foreign affairs 

obligations in the United States, the paramountcy 

doctrine applies. 

2 

- ---'fhe-CNMI--next argues in the alternative that the 

Covenant transferred the submerged lands to the 

Northern Mariana Islands, thereby meeting a 

recognized exception to the paramountcy doctrine 

that allows Congress to cede its paramount authority 

over seaward submerged lands. The fact that the 

United States may provide the submerged lands to the 

CNMI does not mean it has done so here. Neither 

the text of the Covenant nor the actions taken by the 

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
• 

• 

• 

399 F.3d 1057 Page6 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

(Cite as: 399 F.3d 1057) 

parties during and after the negotiations lead to a here. 

conclusion that such a transaction took place. 

The CNMI correctly asserts that, despite the national 

concerns underlying the paramountcy doctrine, 

Congress can transfer ownership of submerged lands 

to the states or other entities. Congress has done so 

in the past. See, e.g., Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 

43 U.S.C. § § 1301, 1lll (transferring submerged 

lands up to three miles from shore back to the states); 

see also Maine, 420 U.S. at 525-27, 95 S.Ct. 1155 

( observing that the Court held the Submerged Lands 

Act constitutional in Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272, 

74 S.Ct. 481, 98 L.Ed. 689 0954)). 

The CNMI argues that the Covenant effected a 

similar transfer. The core of the CNMI's argument is 

that the transfer of "real property" in Section 801 of 

the Covenant includes seaward submerged lands. As 

noted above, Section 801 provides that "[a]ll right, 

title and interest of the Government of the [TTPI] in 

and to real property in the Northern Mariana Islands 

... will, no later than upon the termination of the 

Trusteeship Agreement, be transferred to the 

Government of the Northern Mariana Islands." 

Although the Covenant does not define real property, 

the Commonwealth notes that the Quiet Title Act 

itself specifically includes disputes over "tide and 

submerged lands." 28 U.S.C. § § 2409a(i)-(/ ). If 

such lands were not "real property," the 

Commonwealth argues, such suits could not be 

brought under the Quiet Title Act. 

*1064 We are hesitant to ascribe an implicit intent to 

cede paramount rights over seaward submerged lands 

on this basis. There is a significant distinction 

between the statutory transfers relied on by the 

CNMI and the alleged transfer in the Covenant: the 

statutes cited by the Commonwealth explicitly apply 

to submerged lands. See 43 U.S.C. § 1301 (defining 

submerged lands); 48 U.S.C. § 749 (defining and 

conveying submerged lands to Puerto Rico); 48 

U.S.C. § 1705 (describing and conveying submerged 

lands to Guam, the Virgin Islands and American 

Samoa). The transfer found in Hawaii's Statehood 

Act is also informative. In addition to transferring to 

the new state all lands formerly held by the Territory 

as well as title to certain public lands held by the 

United States, this act also expressly made the 

Submerged Lands Act applicable to the new state. 

See Pub.L. No. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4 (1959). What these 

statutes demonstrate is that Congress knew how to 

grant submerged lands when it so desired. The fact 

no reference to submerged lands appears in the 

Covenant counsels against implying such a meaning 

Ambiguity in drafting is far from novel, even within 

the limited universe of paramountcy cases. 

California raised an argument similar to the one the 

CNMI makes here, arguing that the state's Enabling 

Act ratified a territorial boundary that included a 

three-mile marginal sea. California. 332 U.S. at 29-

30, 67 S.Ct. 1658. Although the Court's opinion did 

not focus on this assertion, judging from the Court's 

favorable decision for the United States, this 

argument apparently carried little weight. FN? 

FN7. In Texas, the Court avoided a similar 

issue by relying on an "equal footing" clause 

rationale not available here. See 339 U.S. at 

714, 70 S.Ct. 918. 

A strong presumption of national authority over 

seaward submerged lands runs throughout the 

paramountcy doctrine cases, and we extend that same 

presumption to the case at hand. FN& Absent express 

indication to the contrary, the ownership of seaward 

submerged lands accompanies United States 

sovereignty. The Covenant lacks such an 

expression . 

FN8. We also note, but do not rely on, the 

general presumption inherent in public land 

cases that transfer of title from the federal 

government is not lightly inferred. See 

Guam ex rel. Guam Econ. Dev. Auth. v. 

United States, 179 F.3d 630, 638 (9th 

Cir.1999) ( citing United States v. Union 

Pac. R.R. Co .. 353 U.S. 112, 116, 77 S.Ct. 

685, 1 L.Ed.2d 693 {1957)). Such a 

presumption does not apply with respect to 

grants to Native Americans. See id. ( citing 

County of Yakima v. Confed. Tribes & 

Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 

251, 269, 112 S.Ct. 683, 116 L.Ed.2d 687 

(1992)); but cf. United States v. 

Washington, 157 F.3d 630, 645-46 (9th 

Cir.I 998) ( discussing circumstances in 

----~whictrthe--equa.-Hooting--doctrine limits the 

implied transfer of non-oceanic submerged 

lands to Indian tribes). Because our 

decision does not rely on this general 

presumption, we do not find it necessary to 

decide whether the canons of construction 

applicable to Indian treaties should also 

apply to inhabitants of the CNMI. Cf. Guam. 

179 F.3d at 638 (declining to decide the 

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
I 

• 

• 

399 F.3d 1057 Page7 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

(Cite as: 399 F.3d 1057) 

issue with respect to natives of Guam). 

The CNMI can point to no language in the Covenant 

that expressly addresses submerged lands. Instead, 

the Commonwealth urges us to consider the 

expansive records of the Covenant's negotiations and 

history to extract the agreement's meaning. The 

district court's analysis of the extrinsic evidence 

relied on by the Commonwealth is persuasive. We 

conclude that there exists no genuine issue of 

material fact because the evidence is not "such that a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party." Thrifiv Oil Co. v. Bank o{Am. 

Nat'/ Trust & Sav. Ass'n. 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th 

Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The 

CNMI cannot overcome the paramountcy *1065 

doctrine because there is no clear intention on the 

part of the United States to cede its authority off the 

shores of the Commonwealth that it is obligated to 

protect. 

The CNMI places substantial emphasis on two orders 

by the Secretary of Interior to support its position. 

The purpose of Secretarial Order No. 2969, 40 

Fed.Reg. 811 (1974), was to implement a 1973 policy 

statement by the United States. Id. at 812. The 

order empowered local district legislatures within the 

TTPI to create legal entities "to hold title to public 

lands within the district." Id at 812. This order 

expressed "[!]imitations" on the transfer of, inter alia, 

"submerged lands." Id. It required the local 

legislatures to reserve "the right of the central 

government of the [TTPI] to regulate all activities 

affecting conservation, navigation, or commerce in 

and to the navigable waters and tidelands, filled 

lands, submerged lands and lagoons." Id. at 812. As 

the district court found, this order was not even 

implemented in the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Secretarial Order No. 2989, 41 Fed.Reg. 15,892 

(1976), applied solely to the Northern Marianas and 

became effective shortly after the Covenant's 

approval. The order addressed the interim governing 

trust administration of the Northern Marianas. One 

of its provisions transferred title to "public lands" 

from the TTPI to another administrator, the United 

States "Resident Commissioner." Id. at 15896. 

There is no indication in this order that the United 

States contemplated a permanent divestment of the 

paramount rights that the United States would obtain 

upon assuming sovereignty. Under the terms of the 

Covenant, the United States did not obtain that 

sovereignty until after the termination of the trust 

relationship. See Covenant § 1003. Read in 

context of the Covenant, Order 2989 demonstrates at 

most the recognition by the United States that the 

paramountcy doctrine could not apply until the 

United States acquired that sovereignty. 

Other extrinsic evidence further erodes the CNMI's 

claim. Position papers by the Commonwealth have, 

on prior occasions, described the Covenant's lack of 

discussion about submerged lands as a "curious blind 

spot" within the agreement. We have relied in 

previous opinions on the Marianas Political Status 

Commission's "authoritative" "Section-by-Section 

Analysis of the Covenant" to assist us in discerning 

the meaning of the Covenant. See Fleming v. Dep't. 

of Pub. SafeD,, 837 F.2d 401, 408 (9th Cir.1988). 

overruled on other grounds, DeNieva v. Reyes, 966 

F.2d 480, 483 (9th Cir.1992): see also Sagana, 384 

F.3d at 734 (referencing the Analysis). Like the 

Covenant itself, this Analysis does not address 

submerged lands, shedding no light on this issue. 

The official FN9 analysis to the CNMI Constitution 

does not help the Commonwealth's position, either. 

This document acknowledges that the United States 

"has a claim to the submerged lands off the coast of 

the Commonwealth" based on the paramountcy 

doctrine. It explains that the CNMI's Constitution 

"recognizes this claim and also recognizes that the 

Commonwealth is entitled to the same interest in the 

submerged lands off its coasts as the United States 

grants to the states." Analysis of the Constitution of 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

144 (Dec. 6, 1976). We agree. Absent express 

language to the contrary, the *1066 CNMI is entitled 

to the same interest in the seaward submerged lands 

as that of the states when they submitted to the 

sovereignty of the United States. As the 

paramountcy cases established, that state interest is 

inferior to the federal rights. Although states have 

acquired greater control over submerged lands 

through congressional action, no similar legislation 

has provided analogous rights to the CNMI. 

FN9. We have previously noted that the 

Northern Mariana Islands' Constitutional 

Convention officially adopted this analysis. 

See Sablan v. Santos, 634 F.2d 1153, 1154 

{9th Cir.1980), superseded by statute on 

other grounds as recognized by Gioda v. 

Saipan Stevedoring Co .• 855 F.2d 625, 628-

29 (9th Cir.1988). 

3 

As the CNMI acknowledges, when the people of the 

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
• 

399 F.3d 1057 Page8 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

(Cite as: 399 F.3d 1057) 

Northern Mariana Islands and the United States 

entered into the Covenant agreement in 1975, "both 

parties had reason to seek a union." Both parties 

received benefits from this agreement. That the 

newly formed Commonwealth subsequently objected 

to the loss of title to submerged lands as result of 

agreeing to United States sovereignty is as unavailing 

to the CNMI as that same argument was to states in 

California, Texas, Louisiana and Maine. The 

CNMI's position is even less persuasive given that 

the Covenant was negotiated after the paramountcy 

doctrine had become well-settled law. 

We recognize the importance of the submerged lands 

surrounding the CNMI to the culture, history and 

future of the Northern Mariana Islands. We also 

trust that the Supreme Court was cognizant of the 

similar importance of submerged lands to coastal 

states. See, e.g., California. 332 U.S. at 40, 67 S.Ct. 

1658. The Supreme Court established the 

paramountcy doctrine in spite of these circumstances, 

leaving it to Congress to provide remedies for the 

states if it so chose. That same avenue is available 

here. 

m 

The Commonwealth admits that its Submerged Lands 

Act, 2 N. Mar. I.Code § § 1201-1231, FNJo and 

Marine Sovereignty Act of 1980, 2 N. Mar. I.Code § 

§ 1101-1143, FNIJ "combine to assert the 

Commonwealth's ownership of the submerged lands" 

in dispute. Because we hold that the United States 

has paramount rights to the submerged lands at issue 

here, see supra, a declaration of ownership ( or 

sovereignty) over these submerged lands is directly 

contrary to federal law. See Texas. 339 U.S. at 719, 

70 S.Ct. 918 ("[T]his is an instance where property 

interests are so subordinated to the rights of 

sovereignty as to follow sovereignty."). The district 

court properly held that the Commonwealth's 

Submerged Lands Act and Marine Sovereignty Act 

of 1980 are preempted by federal law. Cf. Hines v. 

Davidowitz. 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 

581 (1941) ("Our primary function is to determine 

--whethet:::Tstate] *1-067tawstands as an obstacle to 

the accomplishment and execution . of the full 

purposes and objectives of Congress."). 

FNl0. The Commonwealth's Submerged 

Lands Act controls the management of 

submerged lands owned by the CNMI. The 

CNMI legislature declared through this act, 

as amended, that the CNMI government has 

authority over "all submerged lands in the 

Northern Mariana Islands." See PL 6-13 § 

1 (1988) (codified as amended 2 N. Mar. 

I.Code§ 1201 note). 

FN 11. The Marine Sovereignty Act of 1980 

declares "that the sovereignty of the 

Commonwealth extends beyond its land area 

to its internal waters, archipelagic waters, 

and territorial sea." 2 N. Mar. I.Code § 

l 114(a). The territorial sea has an outer 

limit of 12 miles from the "baseline" (the 

line segment designating the border of the 

archipelagic waters). Id. § 1123. This Act 

also declares that the CNMI has "sovereign 

rights" in an "exclusive economic zone," 

which is the area of sea immediately beyond 

the territorial sea, generally to a distance of 

200 miles from the baseline. Id. § § 

l 114(b), 1124. The Act also provides that 

it does not "impose any impediment to any 

lawful action taken by the government of the 

United States for the defense and security of 

the Commonwealth or of the United States." 

Id.§ 1136. 

IV 

We hold that the United States acquired paramount 

interest in the seaward submerged lands, as defined 

by the Supreme Court in California, found off the 

shores of the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. FN12 Laws passed by the CNMI 

legislature to the contrary are inconsistent with the 

paramountcy doctrine and are preempted by federal 

law. The district court's grant of summary judgment 

for the United States is AFFIRMED. 

FN12. We express no opinion as to the 

specific contours of the boundaries of these 

waters and we do not read the district court's 

summary judgment as doing so, either. Cf. 

California. 332 U.S. at 26, 67 S.Ct. 1658 

("[T]here is no reason why, after 

cletennin:ing in general who owns the threemile belt here involved, the Court might not 

later, if necessary, have more detailed 

hearings in order to determine with greater 

definiteness particular segments of the 

boundary."). 

C.A.9 (N.Mariana Islands),2005. 

Northern Mariana Islands v. U.S. 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
• 

• 

• 

399 F.3d 1057 

399 F.3d 1057, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2216, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

(Cite as: 399 F.3d 1057) 

Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1616, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,047 

Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) 

• 2004 WL 1816564 (Appellate Brief) Reply Brief of 

Appellant (Jun. 21, 2004) Original Image of this 

Document (PDF) 

• 2004 WL 1284044 (Appellate Brief) Answering 

Brief of Appellee (Apr. 29, 2004) Original Image of 

this Document with Appendix (PDF) 

• 03-16556 (Docket) (Aug. 25, 2003) 

END OF DOCUMENT 

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 

Page9 
• 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Mr. William L. Robinson 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Pacific Islands Region 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Ste. 1101 

Honolulu, ID 96814 

Dear Mr. Robinson: 

MAY 2 3 2007 

OFFICE OF 

ENFORCEMENT AND 

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 

In accordance with our responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

reviewed the revised Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) "Towards an 

Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-based Fishery Management 

• Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans" (CEQ # 20070140). 

• 

EPA understands that this Programmatic EIS is the first step towards developing and 

implementing the appropriate institutional framework and foundation for future fisheries 

management under an ecosystem approach (i.e., Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs). The EPA fully 

supports the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for taking an ecosystem approach to 

fisheries management and commends NMFS for preparation of this initial analysis. 

As discussed in the revised DPEIS, the preferred FEP Boundary alternative (Issue 1: Fishery 

Ecosystem Boundaries: Alternative lD) that encloses each of the region's four archipelagic areas 

and a single pelagic FEP appears to be an appropriate approach for delineating FEP boundaries. 

Clearly, such an approach should provide significant positive long term impacts to the fisheries. 

EPA's overall rating of the revised DPEIS is LO-Lack of Objection to the proposed action. 

Although we rated the original DPEIS and this revised DPEIS document as LO, EPA requested 

that a few issues be clarified and addressed in future documents on this action. We appreciate 

the responses provided to our previous comments. However, we have noted that a couple of new 

issues have arisen with the development of this new document that we hope will be clarified in 

the FPEIS. The general issues are as follows: 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov . 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
< ... ,:. ... .. .. •• 

• Trophic Interactions and FEPs: 

• 

• 

1.) It would be helpful if the FPEIS discussed in greater detail how fishery interactions (i.e., 

predator-prey relationships) will be factored into the decision making process to add or 

remove species to the list of management unit species in FEPs. 

Environmental Justice (EJ) and FEP Process 

2.) The DPEIS mentions that "various fisheries in the Western Pacific Region have participants 

representing a variety of ethnicities that would fall under the minority provisions of the 

Executive Order. For example, the Hawaii-based longline fleet includes sizable proportions 

of Korean-Americans and Vietnamese-Americans, as well as individuals from a variety of 

other ethnicities." The DPEIS also states that "previous FMPs and research have identified 

environmental justice issues among such members of the fleet. Subsequent monitoring of 

these fishermen and their families was conducted to describe the range of social and cultural 

effects at the individual, family, community, and industry levels" (Allen and Gough 2006). 

While EPA appreciates that NMFS highlighted potential EJ issues with EJ fishing 

communities, we recommend that the FPEIS explain in greater detail what were the specific 

EJ issues that were identified by the Allen and Gough study. Also, we would recommend 

that the FPEIS provide a summary of the overall findings of the report by Allen and Gough. 

EPA noted that a statement is made in the environmental consequences section of the 

DPEIS that the proposed actions are inherently designed to "facilitate and strengthen 

the role of such groups within the fishery management process. " It would be helpful if the 

FPEIS further supported this statement by evaluating in greater detail whether EJ fishing 

communities would or would not be adversely impacted by the proposed actions. EPA 

recommends that the FPEIS provide a more detailed discussion of the structure and numbers 

of potential EJ fishing communitjes that may or may not be impacted by the proposed 

actions. For example, the FPEIS could incorporate and analyze the available data sets from 

the Allen and Gough study on EJ fishing communities to determine the potential impact. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review this revised DPEIS. We also look forward to 

reviewing future documents related to this project. The staff contact for this review is Matthew 

Harrington and he can be reached at (202) 564-7148. 

Sincerely, 

Anne Norton Miller 

Director 

Office of Federal Activities 

cc: Steve Kokkinakis; NOAA Office of Strategic Planning 
ll'i~VlUll'llll:10: 

9043.t 

J>EP/NRM. 

ER07/327 

United States Department of the Interior 

. ··--- -OFFTCtOf1"HESECRETARY .. --

omce ofEnvironmental Policy and Compliance 

1849 C Street, NW· MS 2342- MJB 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

, .June-8. 2007 

Mr. William L. Robinson 

Pacific lsJands Regional Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd.. Suite 1110 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 

Subject: Review of Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement-Toward an 

Ecosystetrrt\JJproactrtorthe Westem··Pacific Region: Frnrn Species-Based 

fishery Management Plans to Place-Based Fishery Ecosystem Plans 

Dear Mr. Robinson: 

The Department of the Interior (Department) has received and reviewed the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement: Toward an EccsystemApproachfor the We.stem Pacific 

Region: From Species-based Fishery Managemem Plans to Place-based Fishery Ecosystem 

Plans (DPEIS). The DPEIS was prepared by staf.f of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and the National Marine Fisheries Service; Pacific Islands 

Regional Office (1\TJviFS-PIRO). We provide our comments under the authority of and in 

accordance with provisions of the Nationa:l Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.; 83 Stat. 852], as amended (NEPA), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act, as amended {l'!'WRSAA), and other authorities mandating the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), National .Park Service. and Department concern for environmental values. 

Based on these authorities, we offer the foUowing comments for your cons.ideration. 

The DPEIS encompasses deep water corals and many coral reef species. The ·•measures being 

· ·· considered w-omd reorga.n1ze·tnecurrent fishery ·regutationifby geographic area,butwoiild not· 

result in substantive changes to the existing regulations ... The DPEIS states that .. while 

principles of ecosystem approach to fisheries management direct managers to consider 

predator/prey relationships for each target species, it does not require managers to manage every 

species under an ecosystem approach." While monitoring and managing all species under an 

ecosystem approach may not be feasible, an alternative that accounts for other species occupying 

the same niche as the target species and that interact with the target species may be more 

appropriate from an ecosystem management perspective. 
William L. RobinSQn 2 

Hence, adaptive management measures that will be taken should be specified to ensure that all 

~<isystem-:jmportant spe(,;ies.wU1 .. ~iJwludeq in .. tne .. Fisheries E{;Q$yst~m Pla.11~(ffirl,~J<Jng with 

measures that will be taken to include species that prove important to managing species within 

each FEP. 

Monitoring plans (including scope+ frequency} need to be developed and implememed;in 

addition,JheJXltentt.d\Va.ys this .infonnation wiH .impact the approach to ecosystem JllLlnagement 

need to be identified. The Final PEIS should address, with some level of detail. how NMFS and 

the Council would provide sustained funding at a level sufficient to ensure that species managed 

under the FEPs will be adequately monitored and that the adaptive management approach is 

working to a sufficient degree to protect managed species and ecosystems. 

In general, ecosystem or place-based management is potentially viewed as movement in the right 

direction for marine fishe1ies-targeted stocks and their encompassing ecosystems. This 

management approach is different than fisheries species-based management and could well be 

beneficiaJ to fishe.ries and marine ecosystems in and around the Pacific Islands National Park 

Service units. However, care is advised with respect to the complete ramifications and potential 

implementation of this or related documents. 

The imp]ementation .of any ecosystem management program within the applicable terrestrial and ·· 

marine jurisdictional framework of stakeholders and partners is another issue that requires 

further consultation and discussion in the DPEIS. Early attention to this potentially sensitive 

issue and the implications for management success will help to steer the future process and assist 

in the development of appropriate management tools and opportunities. 

Based on the preferred alternative analyzed in this DPEIS, the regulatory Federal action to be 

implemented is realignment of existing fishery regulations contained in the Council's five 

current species-based Fishery Management Plan regulations into geographicaHy-based Fishery 

Ecosystem Plan regulations and designation of appropriate management unit species to be 

managed in the FEPs. Non~regulaLOT)' measures considered include identification of appropriate 

advisory bodies and coordination activities to assist the Council and NMFS-PIRO manage these 

new geographically-based fishery management areas in Western Pacific Region. 

In response to an earlier DPEIS with the same title prepared by the Council and NMFS-PIRO, 

the Service provided substantive comments on December 27, 2005. These comments outlined 

significant deficiencies that precluded meaningful NEPA analysis of anticipated impacts to fish 

am:l '':'.il4llJe~s91:1r~e$m.ina.,geci.lJy the St:rviq~ llnci~rits legally 111~11clat~ pμl:l(i<:: si~w~m::lsl:tip 

responsibility to protect and conserve fish and wildlife habitat associated with submerged lands 

and waters within 10 National Wildlife Refuges in the Central Pacific Ocean. The DPEIS does 

not acknowledge these comments or reflect changes that address the management issues 

identified by the Service. Nor does the DPEIS explain why consultation with the Service to 

resolve these issues did not occur. 

The DPEIS proposes a Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA), 

defined in the document as: "Baker Island. Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll. 

Kingman Reef, Wake Island, Palmyra Atoll and Midway Island. Because Midway is located in 
William L. Robinson 3· 

the Hawaiian .Archipelago it is not considered part of the PRIA in this document." U.S. coral 

r~~f~, ~lll:>J!lerg~<i !~.~.? ~114. terijt()tj<lt ~e~. i11 t~~_?RJA~soci~t<!d \\'i tllJ.l3:~erlslll.11<i l'ill.1:i<>nal 

Wildlife Refuge (N\'VR), Howland Island NWR, Jarvis I.sland NWR, Johnston Island NWR, 

Kingman Reef NWR and Palmyra Atoll NWR are administered for Department of the Interior, 

by the Service, under general regulations for the National 'Wildlife Refuge System published 

under Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations. In addition. Service.management actions have be.en 

in1plemenled at these refuges, and they are currently preparillg geographically-based 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans for these NWRs as required by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. Although these are significant facts relative to existing 

management of federalJy protected resources of national importance, and are relevant to the 

proposed action, they are not fully considered in the analysis of impacts associated with the 

proposed action presented in the DPEIS. 

The DPEIS does not evaluate the potential cumulative effects of the proposed action in relation 

to past, present, and potential future actions of the Service in managing six NWRs in the PRIA. 

Procedures under :?\1EPA require potential cumulative effects of the proposed action, as well as 

cumulative effects of alternatives to proposed action, be analyzed in an EIS. Cumulative effects 

are defined as those combined effects on the human environment that result from incremental 

impact of proposed action when added to other past. present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

acuons, regardless wmcnFeclefal or nonf edern.l agency or person undertakes such other act1ons 

(40 CFR 150.8.7). 

The Service has informed the Council and NMFS-PIRO in writing on many occasions in 

response to 1't'MFS-proposed fishery management plans of legally mandated Service actions to 

maintain the biological diversity and ecological integrity of fish and wildlife resources through a 

geo.graphkally-based conservation management regime at NWRs in the Central Pacific Ocean. 

The Service has also informed NMFS that waters within boundaries of NWRs in the PRlA are 

closed to commercial fishing. If implemented, the proposed action would result in establishment 

of a governmental process that would require public and private resources and effort to pursue 

authorization of actions that are not compatible with the purposes for which NWRs were 

established, in accordance with National Wildlife Refuge System requirements found at 50 CFR 

29. Clearly, the proposed action has potential to result in significant cumulative effects on 

existing management of federally protected resources of national importance. By not analyzing 

cumulative effects of such potential significance, the DPEIS falls short of being a document that 

would foster good decisions, as its purpose is intended to be under NEPA. 

~i~~Jl)', l:11~ Nat~onal ~Vil~Jife Refo~e System Administration Act givesthe Interior Department 

primary responsibility for managing fish and wlld1ife resources on lands and waters \vi thin the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. We recommend the following section be added to the final 

EIS, Record of Decision. and related implementing regulations: Relation to other laws. "To 

ensure consistency between management regimes of different Federal agencies with shared 

management recsponsibilities of fishery resources within the PRIA regulatory area. fishing is not 

allowed in any waters withdrawn as a National Wildlife Refuge by the President or the Secretary 

of the Interior unless specifically authorized by regulations issued by the Service." We 

recommend NMFS consult with the Service prior to finalizing this DPEIS on the legal 

requirements for approval of actions pennitted within NWRs and include a summary of results of 
William L. Robinson 4 

this consuJtation in the Final PEIS. We recommend all cases in which proposed actions would 

affect NWRs in the PRIA be identified and incorporated into the analysis presente-0 in the final 

PEIS along with atl relevant infonnation on the outcome of any c:ohsultations with the Service on 

such proposed actions. 

·\ .. 

In cpnclusiol'l,we find that d~ficiencit!s inthe DPE:I~ preclutje * use a~ a p~is for a me~ningful 

analysis of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife resources and NWR management under the 

newly proposed fishery regulatory regime. The DPEIS does not fully analyze cumulative effects 

of proposed alternatives in relation to past, present, and future actions of the Service to mainlain 

a geographically-based ecosystem approach for conserving and pretecting fishery resources 

associated with NWRs in the PRIA. The DPEIS continues to propose activities that are 

incompatible with National Wildlife Refuge System requirements found at 50 CFR 29, Becuuse 

of this, it appears the proposed Fishery Ecosystem Plans would also violate the intent of Section 

304 of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which requires that 

fishery plans and their amendments be developed and implemented in compliance with all 

applicable law. Therefore, we recommend that the Final PEIS include a thorough and complete 

analysis. as described above, of the effects of proposed action on NWRs in the PRIA. If these 

deficiencies are not corrected in the Final PEIS, the Depanment may refer the matter to the 

Council on Environmental Quality, pursuant to 40 CFR 1504. 

Although we agree with the general concept of using an ecosystem approach to managing the 

nation's ocean resources, we nevertheless, desire to continue to pursue resolution of these 

significant marine conservation issues with your agency. We look forward to continuing to v,,1ork 

\Vith NMFS and the CounciJ toward development of a Final PEJS that contains accurate 

information. is consistent with al] applicable law, and represents an adequate basis for dedsionmakers. 

If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact the Pacific Islands Fish and 

\Vildlife Office Field Supervisor, Patrick Leonard, at (808) 792-9400, or the Hawaii and Pacific 

Islands National \Vildlife Refuge Complex Project Leader, Barry Stieglitz, at (808) 792-9540. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. 

Willie R. Taylor 

·---otrec1llt;Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance 
William L. Robinson 

cc: CEQ, Washing-ton DC 

Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service 

Director, Geologjcal Survey 

Director, _Minerals_ Management Service 

Director, National Park Service 

Director,· Bureau ·of Land Mat1agem.e11t 

Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation 

Regional Environmental Office, OAK 

PEP/RESMGT/W A TER/NMFS (Aiam)/DOI comments DEIS Place-based Ecosystem Plans; 

202-208-5465 

············------····-------------·· .......................... . 

5 
Page 2-8. Paragraph above Table 2-3. The following statement, which is stated under 

Alternative IC and implicit in ID (and may also be implicit in IB & IE), "The Federal 

waters around CNMI and the PRIA are recognized as O to 200 miles from shore. Within 

these boundaries, both the demersal and pelagic fisheries would be managed under the 

proposed FEPs .. " With regards to the CNMI this statement is problematic in that it 

proposes potential conflict with current Commonwealth laws and regulatory measures for 

marine resource management. The implementation of either Alternative IC or ID (or 

even IB & IE) will significantly impact the management efforts of the various natural 

resource agencies in the Commonwealth, given the aforementioned statement. 

Although the legal status of the CNMI EEZ has currently been interpreted to be Federal 

waters for the purposes of submerged lands, the issue regarding marine resources is not 

so clear. It has been legally interpreted that Federal ownership of the CNMI EEZ does not 

pertain to marine resources, and a recent court case in the CNMI regarding the 

management authority of the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), given the 

Federal interpretation of ownership of the EEZ, was resolved in favor of the DFW. 

Therefore, the inclusion of Alternatives that emphatically state that marine resources in 

the CNMI EEZ from 0-200 will be managed under the proposed FEP may be 

inappropriate. 

Page 3-4 last paragraph. Does this statement make sense? "For example, the Atlantic 

Ocean has higher salinity levels than the Pacific Ocean because of input from the 

Mediterranean Sea (several large rivers flow into the Mediterranean)." 

Page 3-12 last sentence of first paragraph. It is widely recognized that Dr. Steven 

Hare, presently of International Pacific Halibut Commission coined the term "Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation": 

"Fisheries scientist Steven Hare coined the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" (PDO) in 1996 while 

researching connections between Alaska salmon production cycles and Pacific climate. PDO has since been 

described as a long-lived El Nifio-like pattern of Pacific climate variability because the two climate 

oscillations have similar spatial climate fingerprints, but very different temporal behavior. Two main 

characteristics distinguish PDO from El Nifio/Southern Oscillation (ENSO): first, 20th century PDO 

"events" persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the 

climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while 

secondary signatures exist in the tropics - the opposite is true for ENSO. Several independent studies find 

evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 

and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through 

( at least) the mid-l 990's (Mantua et al. 1997, Mino be 1997). Mino be ( 1999) has shown that 20th century 

PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from l 5-to-25 years, and the other 

from 50-to-70 years." From The Pacific Decadal Oscillation By Nathan Mantua, Ph.D., Joint Institute for 

the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 

Hare citation: 

Hare, S.R., 1996: Low frequency climate variability and salmon production. Ph.D. dissertation, School of 

Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Page 3-30 middle paragraphs. As this section deals with bottomfish habitat 

requirements, perhaps it would be appropriate to mention the tagging work of Henry 
Okamoto that demonstrated that bottomfish species do and may move between islands 

and banks as adults. 

Section 3.5.2. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

Page 3-71 The island of Uracas is located north of 20 degrees so the latitudinal rage 

should be extended to 21 ° N. 

Only the islands ofUracas, Maug, Ascunsion and Guguan are wildlife conservation 

areas. 

Page 3-71 & 3-72. Bank A, Pathfinder Reef, Bank D, Bank C and Arakane Reef are part 

of the West Mariana Ridge (WMR) that also includes Stingray Shoals. They are located 

~ 110-120 miles west of the main island chain and are no closer to the northern islands 

than they are to the southern islands. In fact, some of those banks are closer to the 

southern island chain. In this section is should also be mentioned that extensions of the 

northern and southern islands include, for the northern islands; Uracas Bank north of 

Uracas, Pakapaka reef, Malakis Reef, 300 Reef, Dump Coke Bank, Zealandia Banks all 

south of Anatahan. 

For the southern islands; White Tuna Reef, ESE Reef and Sonome Reefs all north of 

FDM. Most of these, with the possible exception of Pakapaka Reef, all contain habitat 

that falls within the Coral Reef Ecosystem. 

Page 3-72. The Tropic of Cancer begins at 23°30' (23.5°) N latitude. All of the islands 

and shallow reefs/banks of the CNMI fall within the tropical zone. 

Marine Environment 

Page 3-72. In the CNMI the eastern island aspect is the windward side and the western 

island aspect the leeward side, and therefore the reefs are much better developed on the 

western (leeward) side of the island. It is backwards in the DEIS, and if the source you 

cite actually has it stated incorrectly, another source should be cited. 

Off the SW side ofFDM exists an extensive reef platform from ~30 to 100 feet. It is well 

developed. Also, the nearshore coastline of FDM is comprised of wall features, some 

with well-developed reef structures. 

Page 3-73. The last sentence of the paragraph at the top of the page states "Farallon de 

Medinilla is near a large shallow bank 1 mile north of the island (about 18 meters)." It is 

not clear what this means. There is a shallow reef north of the island that rises to ~ 18 feet, 

but there is no "large shallow bank 1 mile north of the island" that is implied to be 18 

meters deep? A very large bank surrounds FDM that falls within the 100-meter contour 

line. To the north the 100-meter contour line is about 15 kilometers away. The depth 

range is mostly about 50-80 meters. A "large shallow bank 1 mile north of the island" at 

about 18 meters depth does not make sense. 
The reference to the Crown of Thoms Starfish (COTS) as "pernicious" is misleading. The 

COTS is a natural predator of corals. It has evolved within the context of the coral reef 

ecosystem and to call it "pernicious" implies that its natural behavior is somehow 'bad'. 

The study of COTS has thus far been limited to a narrow time scale (the advent of scuba 

as a scientific tool) from a direct cause-effect perspective. In fact, long-term benefits 

COTS are to the corals they feed upon and the coral reef ecosystem as a whole has not 

been addressed. The cause( s) of COTS outbreaks is poorly understood, although 

outbreaks seem to exhibit a partly cyclic pattern. Although other species that feed on live 

coral such as the Humphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) are held in high 

esteem and have attained a protected status in some regions, there is a distinct doublestandard that is applied to COTS that is not improved by the implications contained in the 

term "pernicious". 

Marine Mammals and Seabirds 

Page 3-75. The pan-tropical white belly spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris 

longirostris) is the only known cetacean in the CNMI that forms resident pods amongst 

the main island chains. It has also frequently stranded on occasion see: Trianni MS & CK 

Kessler. 2002. Incidence and strandings of the Spinner Dolphin, Stenella longirostris, in Saipan 

Lagoon. Micronesica 34(2) 249-260. 

Fisheries 

Section 3.4.1 appears to refer to sea turtles, and does not have any additional information 

on CNMI fisheries??? 

Demersal Fisheries 

Coral Reef 

Page 3-77. The sea cucumber harvest moratorium is for all sea cucumbers, and not just 

Actinopyga mauritiana. This section appears rather short in comparison to other sections 

that follow. To have a very small paragraph on CNMI Coral Reef Fisheries in an Coral 

Reef Ecosystem DEIS seems unfortunate, but I am no expert on DEIS protocols. 

[Added note: These are comments from 

Michael Trianni <mstdfw@gmail.com> 

Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:23:56 +1000 

To: WesternPacificRDPEIS@noaa.gov 
This page left blank intentionally. 
Appendix F 

Public Comments on the Initial Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-based Fishery Mana

Place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans,” October 27, 2005 
This page left blank intentionally.
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-1 

Appendix F 

Public Comments and Responses to Comments on an Initial Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact StatemenEcosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-Based Fishery Management Plans to Place-BEcosystem Plans,” dated March 25, 2005.3Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC RespoComment 1: The “Hold WesPac Accountable” and “I Support Strong Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Protection” letters, as well as a unique letter from the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI) stated that there was an inappropriately limited opportunity for public input. 

Response 1: While seen as athere was confusion between Draft Programmatic EIS (DPFishery Ecosystem Plans (FEWestern Pacific Regional Fis(WPRFMC). These are two deach with its own process and 

The DPEIS fulfilled the NatioAct (NEPA) public review prRegister notice and associateperiod. No changes were madcomment.

Comment 2: The “Hold WesPac Accountable” and “I Support Strong NWHI Protection” letters, as well as the MCBI letter claim that the Council voted on the FEPs prior to completion of the FPEIS. 

Response 2: The Council revhere prior to voting on the FEcomments on the DPEIS to dreconsider their action. This c

NEPA analysis or process anresponse. 

Comment 3: The “Hold WesPac Accountable” and “I Support Strong NWHI Protection” letters, as well as two unique letters expressed concern over a 

Response 3: The DPEIS descbeginning an incremental app

3 The comments in this appendix were considered and incorporated into a subsequent Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statem

distributed for public review and comment on March 30, 2007. See Chapter 6 and Appendix E for public comments on the 2007 revised 
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-2 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC Respoperceived lack of specific information provided regarding changing from a species based management system to an ecosystem approach to management. 

ecosystem approaches to manWestern Pacific Region. The realignment of existing fisherbased structure with refined m(MUS) lists representative of understood that the full impleinto account more than just tamust consider ecosystem relatrophic levels, habitat, and sotools to effectively implemendeveloped. The DPEIS (and taddress only the first steps in process that will eventually lefirst step merely creates a frabuild an ecosystem approach present management of these future actions to further impladdressing trophic interactionscientific and management asanalysis) of their potential imto be collaborative and interaprivate and governmental spechanges were made in respon

Comment 4: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commented that the preferred alternative under Issue 2 (List of MUS) chosen by NMFS and the Council would define and manage only the currently listed MUS which are known to be present within each FEP’s boundaries. The DPEIS states that “while principles of ecosystem approach to fisheries management direct managers to consider predator/prey relationships for each target species, it does not require managers to manage every species under an ecosystem approach.” This comment went on to say that while the EPA understands it would be difficult to 

Response 4: NMFS agrees thfisheries management should into account all species or stoFEP boundary to the extent thachieve Magnuson-Stevens FManagement Act objectives. (and this EIS), the value of inspecies would be negligible g
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-3 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC Respomonitor and manage all species under an ecosystem approach, an option that takes into account other species occupying the same niche as fisheries and that interacts with fisheries may be more appropriate from an ecosystem standpoint. Accordingly the EPA suggests that the EIS provide a more in- depth comparison of Alternative 2C (include existing MUS plus incidentally caught and associated species known to be present within each FEP’s boundaries) to Alternative 2B (include existing MUS known to be present within each FEP’s boundaries). 

low numbers and are not targwere made in response to this 

Comment 5: The EPA commented that it supports Alternative 2B as it provides for protection of target and non-target stocks as well as protected species. However while the DPEIS discusses how the removal of species from the MUS list not physically present within each FEP’s boundaries would be part of an adaptive management approach, it did not discuss how species could be added to the MUS list. As a result the EPA requests that adaptive management measures be included to ensure that all ecosystem important species will be include species that prove important to managing species within each FEP. 

Response 5: As discussed in federal fisheries in the Westemanaged under the MagnusoConservation and ManagemeMSA, additional MUS may bamendment process. This is tused to add or remove specieexisting FMPs. The WPRFMdeveloping plan amendments MUS from the FEPs. If approCommerce, FEP amendmentproposed and final rulemakinwere made in response to this 

Comment 6: The EPA commented that there is no discussion under Issue 2 (List of MUS) concerning how the species managed under the restructured MUS lists will be monitored, The EPA requests that descriptions be included regarding how the MUS will be monitored, how frequently they will be assessed, and how these activities will be funded. 

Response 6: As discussed in (and this EIS) the current MUthe existing FMPs will be mamethodologies are found.

Comment 7: The Ocean Conservancy commented that NEPA requires that major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment contain a detailed statement of, among other things, “the environmental impact of the proposed action.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(i). However the Ocean Conservancy believes that by defining the action too narrowly, the agency has failed to consider the full effects on the human environment as required under NEPA and that a switch to environmental planning must include 

Response 7: The DPEIS (and framework for beginning an iadoption of EAM in the WesDPEIS (and this EIS) describfishery regulations under a plrefined MUS lists representatdiscussed in the DPEIS, altho
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-4 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC Respofull discussions and analyses of the interconnectedness of marine habitats and 

species as a unified whole. In addition it must consider the food chain and possible disruptions to that chain. Only then will the quality of the effects on the human environment be fully discussed. 

full implementation of EAM than just the target fisheries, ecosystem relationships such habitat, and social and econoeffectively implement such a developed. The DPEIS (and taddress only the first steps in process that will eventually leprocess merely creates a frambuild an ecosystem approach present management of these future actions to further impladdressing trophic interactionscientific and management asanalysis) of their potential imto be collaborative and interaprivate and governmental spechanges were made in respon

Comment 8: KAHEA, the ‘Ilio ‘ulaokalani Coalition, and Environmental Defense commented that there was a failure to provide reasonable opportunity for public comment, analysis by State of Hawai`i, or by Wespac [WPRFMC] members. On December 20, 2005, Wespac held an “emergency meeting” by teleconference for the purpose of voting to take final action on over 1,200 pages of “Fishery Ecosystem Plans,” and recommend new Federal regulatory actions despite the absence of an opportunity for public comment on the final FEPs and despite a vote by Wespac in November, 2005 (at a previous public meeting in Guam) to weigh final approval of the FEPs at its next scheduled meeting in March, 2006. 

Response 8: While seen as athere was confusion between FEPs. These are two differenits own process and public refulfilled the NEPA public revFederal Register notice and a

comment period. This commNEPA analysis or process anresponse.

Comment 9: KAHEA, the ‘Ilio ‘ulaokalani Coalition, and Environmental Defense commented that the fact that Wespac and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released (i.e. failed to release) the FEPs and DPEIS to the 

Response 9: While seen as athere was confusion between FEPs. These are two differen
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-5 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC Respopublic in a timely manner represents a violation of NEPA requirements. Wespac took “Final Action” on the FEPs prior to the close of public comment on the DPEIS which was ostensibly designed to solicit public input on whether the FEPs should be promulgated, and if so, which type of FEPs should be promulgated – (i.e. which federal regulatory actions should be taken). The Draft FEPs, proposing federal regulatory actions, were released one month prior to the DPEIS. The Final FEPs were not released to the public until two working days prior to the start of “public hearings.” 

its own process and public refulfilled the NEPA public revFederal Register notice and acomment period. The Councipresented here prior to voting the public comments on the Dthey wish to reconsider their not address the NEPA analyswere made in response.

Comment 10: KAHEA, the ‘Ilio ‘ulaokalani Coalition, and Environmental Defense commented that the FEPs upon which Wespac voted were riddled with what one Wespac member called “absolute inaccuracies.” According to State representatives, the Hawaiian Archipelago FEP contains “numerous factual and typographic errors” which “indicate that the document is far from ready from final approval.” The state representative presented examples including fifteen instances of species or entire families of organisms listed for Hawaii which “do not occur in the Hawaiian archipelago. 

Response 10: Staff from the Resources have reviewed the and identified those MUS spethe Hawaiian Archipelago, ththe MUS lists in the FEPs. Silists for the other FEPs were comments from other local magencies. In addition a profesgrammatical and typographic carried over into this EIS.

Comment 11: KAHEA, the ‘Ilio ‘ulaokalani Coalition, and Environmental Defense commented that the DPEIS and the FEPs call for violations of existing rules and the Executive Orders which established the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. For example, despite a ban on coral harvesting in the NWHI Reserve and a Record of Decision by NOAA forbidding any such harvest, both 

the DPEIS (pg. 165) and the FEP for the Hawaiian Archipelago ( pg. 117) describe coral harvesting quotas and activities for banks in the NWHI. The DPEIS failed to mention in its description on permitting ( pg. 164) that Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP permits may not be issued for the NWHI (to do so would violate the Executive Orders and NMFS rules). Despite the fact that the NWHI lobster fishery is closed under a permanent injunction and Executive Order, there are ten pages of discussion of details regarding the NWHI lobster fishery, including the fact that Wespac rules allow the taking of egg-bearing female 

Response 11: The DPEIS incfisheries and applicable MSA Executive Orders were never any other regulatory authority over their applicability remaiestablishment of the NWHI Mhas been acknowledged in ththese comments moot. No chto this comment.
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-6 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC Respolobster and undersized juveniles (“retain all fishery”) in the overfished waters of 

the NWHI (where the spiny lobster population has plummeted) but forbid the take of egg-bearing females and undersized juveniles in the Main Hawaiian Islands . 

Comment 12: KAHEA, the ‘Ilio ‘ulaokalani Coalition, and Environmental Defense commented that Wespac utilized public funds to make misleading claims regarding “agency” status. These commentors stated that their understanding is that Wespac is a Council authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is not a federal agency, therefore it is not liable to face lawsuits for its 

actions. However, Wespac has apparently been utilizing public funds to declare that it is a federal agency, including in Wespac’s announcement regarding the FEP “public hearings,” published in the Honolulu Advertiser on December 11, 2005. This “Notice of Public Hearings and Public Meetings,” bearing the official Wespac seal , states that “The Council is the policy-making agency for offshore waters around the U.S. Pacific islands.” However, both the State of Hawai`i and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service make policy regarding “offshore waters around the U.S. Pacific Islands.” A quick survey of Wespac’s website identifies other occasions when Wespac has distributed press releases and other materials to the public claiming that it is a federal agency (for example in November 2002, March and November, 2005, etc.) At the December 20, “public hearing” in Honolulu, Environmental Defense’s Hawai`i representative asked for clarification from the NOAA Fisheries, Regional Administrator regarding whether Wespac was or was not an agency. The NOAA Administrator responded that Wespac is not a federal agency. No information was forthcoming regarding why the Council continues to misrepresent itself to the public as a federal agency (apparently utilizing federal funds to do so) or what steps NOAA intends to take regarding this misrepresentation and apparent misuse of federal funds. 

Response 12: This comment analysis or process and no ch

Comment 13: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) commented that although it recognizes that a great amount of work went into producing the 

DPEIS, but despite the lengthy comments previously expressed by the USFWS and the Department of the Interior and formal agreements between NMFS and the USFWS regarding jurisdictional authorities that were incorporated into the 

Response 13: NMFS will cothe Council, the Department Department of Defense under NMFS to protect, conserve anin the U.S. EEZ . NMFS also 
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-7 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC RespoCoral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan, many of their substantive concerns regarding the UFWS’ exclusive authority to manage fisheries within the boundaries of 10 National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in the Central Pacific Ocean remain inadequately addressed and not clearly described in the analysis contained in the DPEIS. 

uncommon for multiple agenconcurrent management authresources and where applicab

management approaches. Lanassociated regulations) and thCoral Reef Ecosystem FisherUSFWS jurisdiction. No chanthis comment.

Comment 14: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 1.2.3; Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Government ..; pg 4; first paragraph; first sentence should be changed to read as follows: "The US. Fish and Wildlife Service manages waters and submerged lands within Baker Island NWR, Howland Island NWR, Jarvis Island NWR, Kingman Reef NWR, Palmyra Atoll NWR, Johnston Island NWR, Rose Atoll NWR, Guam NWR, Midway Atoll NWR and Hawaiian Islands NWR and provides a comprehensive conservation approach to protect and conserve fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of present and future generations of Americans." 

Response 14: Text has been comment.

Comment 15: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 1.2.3; Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Government ...; pg. 4 first paragraph include the following sentence after the first sentence of this paragraph: "Fishing is not allowed in any waters withdrawn as a NWR by the President or Secretary of the Interior unless specifically authorized by regulations issued by the Service." It is essential to include this sentence in the Final PEIS because NMFS agreed to include this clarifying language in the Record of Decision for the Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan (CREFMP) and in subsequent rules and regulations implementing the CREFMP. In addition, this exclusive regulatory authority of the Service to manage fisheries in NWRs applies to all current Fishery Management Plans and is particularly important to include in this PEIS because the establishment of boundaries for Fishery Ecosystem Plans in the Western Pacific Region is the proposed Federal action and categorized as regulatory in this document. 

Response 15: Comment acknthis issue in discussions betwsection was not changed.

Comment 16: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 2.1 Issue 1: Fishery Response 16: The issue of ju
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-8 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC RespoEcosystem Plan Boundaries (Regulatory); pg 22; first paragraph; last sentence 

specifically identify the NWRSAA as a law that will be complied with in implementing the proposed action. Thus, the last sentence will read: "These actions will be taken in accordance with the MSA, NEPA, ESA, MMPA, NWRSAA, and other applicable laws and statutes”. 

and thus no changes were macomment. However the failurspecific law or statute does naddressed.

Comment 17: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 3.5.1.2 Protected 

Species; pg 103; Table 20 Title should be modified to read as follows: "Twelve species of migratory seabirds reside at Rose Atoll NWR. 

Response 17: Text has been 

Comment 18: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 3.5.5.1 Baker Island; pg. 153; Social Environment; Baker Island NWR should be corrected to reflect that the Baker Island NWR was established in 1974, not 1936. 

Response 18: Text has been 

Comment 19: The USFWS commented that the fifth sentence in the above DPEIS section should read as follows: "The Refuge boundary, established by the President of the United States, lies 3 nm seaward of the shoreline and this area is managed by USFWS as a no-take marine protected area (MPA)." The USFWS also requested that the last sentence be deleted because the Council's 50-fathom no-take MPA is within the Refuge and does not provide any additional protection. In addition inclusion of the sentence confuses the public as to the extent of the no-take MPA at Baker Island NWR. 

Response19: While there is p

the Council’s existing managregulations is required. No chto this comment. 

Comment 20: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 3.5.5.2 Howland Island; pg. 155; Social Environment; should be corrected to reflect that the Howland Island NWR was established in 1974, not 1976. 

Response 20: Text has been 

Comment 21: The USFWS commented that the seventh sentence in the above DPEIS section should read as follows: 'The Refuge boundary, established by the President of the United States, lies 3 nm seaward of the shoreline and this area is managed by USFWS as a no-take MPA." The USFWS also requested that the last sentence be deleted because the Council's 50-fathom no-take MPA is within the Refuge and does not provide any additional protection. In addition inclusion of the sentence confuses the public as to the extent of the no-take MPA at Howland Island NWR. 

Response 21: While there is the Council’s existing managregulations is required. No chto this comment. 

Comment 22: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 3.5.5.3 Jarvis Response 22: Text has been 
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-9 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC RespoIsland; pg. 156-157; Social Environment; should be corrected to reflect that the Jarvis Island NWR was established in 1974, not 1976. Comment 23: The USFWS commented that the fourth sentence in the above DPEIS section should read as follows: "The Refuge boundary, established by the President of the United States, lies 3 nm seaward of the shoreline and this area is managed by USFWS as a no-take MPA." The USFWS also requested that the last sentence be deleted because the Council's 50-fathom no-take MPA is within the Refuge and does not provide any additional protection. Inclusion of the sentence confuses the public as to the true extent of the no-take MPA at Jarvis Island NWR. 

Response 23: While there is the Council’s existing managregulations is required. No chto this comment.

Comment 24: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 3.5.5.4 Palmyra Atoll; pg. 158; Social Environment should read as follows: 'The Refuge boundary, established by the Secretary of the Interior in 2001, coincides with the 12-nm territorial seas boundary and this area is managed by USFWS as a nocommercial-take MPA." Also, please delete the last sentence because the Council's 50-fathom low-use MPA is within the Refuge and does not provide any additional protection. Inclusion of the sentence confuses the public as to the extent of the no-take MPA at Palmyra Atoll NWR. 

Response 24: While there is the Council’s existing managregulations is required. No chto this comment.

Comment 25: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 3.5.5.5 Kingman 

Reef; pg. 159 does not include a "Social Environment" sub-section and fails to identify the existence of Kingman Reef NWR to the public. The USFWS requested that the following sentences be added "Since 2001, Kingman Reef has been a National Wildlife Refuge managed by USFWS. The Refuge boundary, established by the Secretary of the Interior, coincides with the 12-nm territorial seas boundary and this area is managed by USFWS as a no-take MPA." The USFWS also requested that the last sentence be deleted because the Council's 50-fathom no-take MPA is within the Refuge and does not provide any additional protection. Inclusion of the sentence confuses the public as to the true extent of the no-take MPA at Kingman Reef NWR. 

Response 25: A Social EnvirKingman Reef with the followmanagement authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicService administers the island Refuge and asserts a 12-nautiatoll. The Coral Reef Ecosystestablished a low-use MPA fKingman Atoll.”

Comment 26: The USFWS commented that DPEIS Section 3.5.5.6 Johnston Atoll; pg 161; Social Environment; pg 161 should read as follows “Today, the 

Response 26: Comment acknthis issue in discussions betw
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-10 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC RespoU.S. Air Force continues to maintain administrative jurisdiction and control over the 3-nm Naval Defensive Sea around Johnston Atoll and access to his area is prohibited.” 

U.S. Navy, this section was n

Comment 27: The USFWS commented that it continues to manage Johnston Atoll as a National Wildlife Refuge and noted that the USFWS rescinded its recreational fishing regulations at Johnston Island NWR because there are no longer any military personnel stationed on Johnston Island. The USFWS also commented that DPEIS Chapter 5 Environmental Management Issues; Section 5.7 Possible Conflicts Between the Alternatives and Other Plans; pg 219 fails to provide a full and objective discussion of significant impacts of the proposed action on the USFWS’ ability to manage NWRs as commercial fishing within the Pacific NWRs is an activity that is not allowed by the USFWS. If the DPEIS is implemented as currently written, their ability to manage marine resources within NWR ecosystems will be seriously compromised because activities that would be permitted under the Final PEIS would violate their current management regimes at these NWRs. The USFWS is very concerned that the proposed type of overlapping management regime alluded to in the DPEIS appears to have a strong potential to result in unnecessary duplication of effort, bureaucracy, and expenditures, and be a source of confusion both to the Service and NMFS, as well as to the public. In their view, Council and NMFS pursuit of applying the proposed DPEIS place-based management regime within NWRs has been a misdirection of effort since the NWRSAA requires that the USFWS maintain sole and exclusive management authority over NWRs. To avoid unnecessary conflicts, they recommend that NMFS produce a Final PEIS that includes MPAs that are compatible with and reflective of the management regime currently being implemented by the USFWS within these Pacific NWRs. 

Response 27: NMFS will cothe Council, the Department Department of Defense under NMFS to protect, conserve anin the U.S. EEZ. NMFS also uncommon for multiple agenconcurrent management authresources and where applicabmanagement approaches. No response to this comment.

Comment 28: The USFWS commented that deficiencies in the DPEIS preclude its use as a basis for a meaningful analysis of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife resources and NWR management under the newly proposed fishery regulatory regime because the DPEIS does not fully analyze the proposed alternatives for their compatibility with the primary purposes for which the relevant NWRs were established. Finally, the USFWS believes that the DPEIS 

Response 28: NMFS believecontains a thorough and comregulatory actions being propboundaries and MUS lists). Nclosely with the Council, the (USFWS) and the Departmen
 FPEIS Appendix F Page F-11 

Comment on 2005 Initial Draft PEIS: NMFS and WPFMC Respoproposes activities that are incompatible with the National Wildlife Refuge System requirements found at 50 CFR 29 and because of this, it appears that the proposed Fishery Ecosystem Plans would also violate the intent of Section 304 of the MSA that fishery plans and their amendments be developed and implemented in compliance with all applicable law. Therefore, they recommend that the Final PEIS include a thorough and complete analysis of the affects of the proposed Federal action on existing NWRs. If these deficiencies are not corrected in the Final PEIS, the USFWS will refer the matter to the Council of Environmental Quality, pursuant to 40 CFR 1504. 

MSA’s authorization for NMmanage fishery resources in trecognizes that it is not uncombe vested with concurrent mamarine resources and where aintegrated management approEIS) describe a framework foapproach to the adoption of E

Region. The DPEIS (and this address only the first steps in process that will eventually leprocess merely creates a frambuild an ecosystem approach present management of these future actions to further impladdressing trophic interactionscientific and management asanalysis) of their potential imto be collaborative and interaprivate and governmental spechanges were made in respon

Comment 29: The American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources commented that the DPEIS cites the Manua Islands at two different distances from Tutuila (60 and 70 miles) and that it is stated the region is geologically inactive yet a seamount is forming near the Manua Islands. 

Response 29: Text has been 
Support Strong NWHI Protections 

l of l 

Subject: I Support Strong NWHI Protections 

From: Photowonder20l0@hotmail.com 

Date: 15 Dec 2005 17:31:13-0000 

To: WPEAMPEIS@noaa.gov 

Regional Administrator William Robinson, National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1601 Kapiolani Boulevard 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

Dear Regional Administrator Robinson, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

I am deeply concerned about the future of the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), especially if the Western Pacific 

Region Fisheries Management Council (WESPAC) continues to 

propose commercial fishing in this fragile region. The NWHI are 

a rare and culturally-important habitat. Wespac's proposed 

Ecosystem Management Plan does not protect this unique ocean 

ecosystem. 

Also, Wespac released 1,200 pages of these plans only a few days 

before the public hearings, giving the public little time to 

review them despite federal requirements for public comment. I 

urge an investigation of Wespac's tactics. 

The NWHI are spawning grounds for many marine species found in 

the waters of the main Hawaiian Islands, where our fisheries, 

tourism, and diving industries are based. I support the 

application of the strong protections established by Governor 

Lingle for state waters of the NWHI to surrounding federal 

waters, and urge their protection from commercial activity. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Adrienne Moumin 

2807 Byron St. 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20902 

3/16/2007 10:11 AM 
fold Wespac Accountable 

1 of 1 

Subject: Hold Wespac Accountable 

From: lafleurjourneys@yahoo.com 

Date: 09 Dec 2005 02:32:35 -0000 

To: WPEAMPEIS@noaa.gov 

Administrator William Robinson 

Dear Administrator Robinson, 

I am gravely concerned about the future of the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands, if Wespac continues to propose commercial 

fishing in this fragile region. 

Wespac's proposed Ecosystem Management Plan is fatally flawed. 

The Council admits that the "measures being considered would 

reorganize the current fishery regulations by geographic area, 

but would not result in substantive changes to the existing 

regulations." 

By refusing to acknowledge the NWHI ecosystem and instead 

continuing to promote single species management, Wespac mocks 

the essence of ecosystem planning, which is designed to consider 

the interactions among various species. 

The fishery council's continued use of the single species 

management model will guarantee more overfishing, more collapses 

in fish stocks, and subsequent habitat destruction. 

Enough is enough! We have already seen the devastation of the 

NWHI lobster fishery. I am not willing to allow Wespac to 

threaten the integrity of this last coral reef wilderness. 

I want you to know that I also support a Inspector General 

investigation of this rogue fishery council, which has for 

decades refused to protect our public trust resources. I join 

the call for investigation of the strong evidence of improper 

and dishonest conduct by Wespac in its campaign to undermine the 

NWHI Executive Orders and NWHI protections. 

I urge you to support a full investigation of Wespac's 

activities, including scrutiny of their lobbying activities, 

misuse of public funds and manipulations of rules and 

regulations regarding public participation. 

Mahalo for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

steve LaFleur 

P.o. box 643 

Kihei, Hawaii 96753 

3/16/2007 10:08 AM 
FW: DEIS comment 

1 of2 

Subject: FW: DEIS comment 

From: "DMWR" <dmwr@samoatelco.com> 

Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:35:02 -1100 

To: <WPEAMPEIS@noaa.gov> 

-----Original Message-----

From: Karl Brookins [mailto:asfisherysci1@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 3:55 PM 

To: dmwr@samoatelco.com 

Subject: DEIS comment 

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Comments 

American Samoa Government 

Review of Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Towards an Ecosystem approach for the Western Pacific Region: from species-based management 

plans to place-ha! sedfishery ecosystem plans. October 27, 2005 

Submission deadline: December 19, 2005 to WPEAMPEIS@noaa.gov 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is poorly drafted; many sentences are unclear and 

some unintelligible. Errors are common in the text making true evaluation of the document difficult 

to impossible. Fore! xample the description of the preferred alternative 2B on page 177-178: The 

section includes the phrase "believed to occur" in the title, "known to occur" once in the text, and 

"physically present" appears four times in the text. Another example is that several of the paragraphs 

evaluating impacts on environment, stocks, protected species, fishery participants, etc. repeat nearly 

word for word e.g. pages 185 and 187. If there is actually no new information to include, the 

paragraphs are better combined to reduce redundancy and length of the document. 

The DEIS is self-described as a foundational document for a change to more scientifically based 

ecosystem management upon which "subsequent phases ... will build off. .. ". Science itself is based on 

previous works, as is the DEIS. However, the draft DEIS fails to list at least 69 citations in the 

references including some foundational scientific documents. References are also out of order, and 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 274:269-303 is attributed to at least five groups of authors with 

different titles. Errors listed above and others demonstrate the DEIS is seriously flawed and a poor 

choice as a foundational document. 

In the DEIS sections desc! ribing American Samoa most of the citations are omitted from the 

references. Some important American Samoa information and references do not appear to be cited in 

the DEIS. One page reports Manua Islands as 60 miles from Tutuila, and the next page reports the 

distance as 70 miles. The document states the American Samoa region is geologically inactive and yet 

an undersea volcano is known to be building offManua Islands. 

The finding of little effect from the management actions is misleading in relation to impacts to fishery 

participants and communities, especially cumulative impacts as the DEIS is to be foundational; future 

management changes will build upon the ! DEIS thus having cumulative effects. For example 

beginning an ecosystem approach to fisheries management involves considering predator-prey 

3/16/2007 10: 11 AM 
1

W: DEIS comment 

2 of2 

interactions and invariably involves leaving some resource for predators. Leaving it for predators 

translates into reduced catches and impacts to participants and communities like American Samoa that 

are highly dependent on fisheries for employment and food. 

Karl Brookins, Ph.D., Chief Fishery Biologist, December 19, 2005 

Do You Yahoo!? 

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

http://mail.yahoo.com 

3/16/2007 10:11 AM 
COMMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, 'ILIO'ULAOKALANI COALITION, AND 

KAHEA: THE HAWAIIAN-ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE 

CONCERNING 

THE DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Towards and 

Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-based Fishery Management Plans to 

Place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans 

December 27, 2005 

Contacts: 

Isaac D. Harp Cha Smith 

KAHEA: 

Stephanie Fried, Ph.D. 

Environmental Defense - Hawaii 

stephf@environmentaldefense.org 

'Ilio 'ulaokalani Coalition 

NWHI Committee Chair 

Imua.hawaii@verizon.net 

The Hawaiian-Environmental 

Alliance 

Kahea-alliance@hawaii.rr.com 

The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands hui represents a broad network of fishers, Native Hawaiians, 

scientists, environmentalists, divers and Hawai'i residents associated with the 'Ilio 'ulaokalani Coalition, 

Environmental Defense, and KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, representing thousands of 

members throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Our testimony is based on community input received during 

over 100 meetings and 30 hearings held in Hawai'i on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in the past five 

years, as well as federal law. 

The recent actions of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (Wespac) 

regarding the introduction of "Fishery Ecosystem Plans" and a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (DPEIS) follow a pattern and practice of improper and dishonest conduct, and appear to 

be consistent with other Wespac attempts to undermine protections established for the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This pattern includes a programmatic failure to meet legal mandates 

and the questionable use of federal funds to support the W espac campaign to undermine the NWHI 

Executive orders, the efforts of the Reserve Council, and the sanctuary designation process. 

1 

We call for the withdrawal of the fatally flawed Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) and the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) and we strongly support an Inspector 

General investigation of Wespac for the following reasons: 

1. Failure to provide reasonable opportunity for public comment, analysis by State of Hawai'i, 

or by Wespac members. On December 20, 2005, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council (Wespac) held a "emergency meeting" by teleconference for the purpose of 

voting to take Final Action on over 1,200 pages of "Fishery Ecosystem Plans," recommending 

1 See "Report on Suspect Actions of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Recommendation: The 

Inspector General of the Department of Commerce should investigate the Council," Oahu Game Fish Club, Waianae Boat 

Fishing Club, November 2005. 

1 
new Federal regulatory actions despite the absence of an opportunity for public comment on the 

final FEPs and despite a vote by Wespac in November, 2005 (at a previous scheduled public 

meeting in Guam) to weigh Final Approval of the FEPs at its next scheduled meeting in March, 

2006. 

2. The final FEPs were made available to the public only two working days prior to the start of 

December FEP "public hearings." 

3. State representatives and Wespac members from Hawai'i indicated that they, themselves, had not 

received the documents in a manner to allow meaningful comment, and that the State had received 

the final, complete FEP for the Hawaiian archipelago only after two days of public hearings had 

already been held in Hilo and Kona.2 In addition, the Honolulu "public hearing" on the FEPs was 

held the day of the W espac "Final Action" on the FEPs and prior to the close of public comment 

on the DPEIS on December 27. At the Wespac meeting, prior to the vote on the FEPs staff read 

aloud a short summary of some written public comments on the DPEIS, despite that one week 

still remained in the DPEIS public comment period. Comments made in hearings on the FEPs 

were not differentiated from DPEIS comments and no summary or analysis of inputs solely from 

the recent hearings (including the Honolulu hearing) on the FEPs was provided. 

4. NEPA violations. The process by which Wespac and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) released (i.e. failed to release) the FEP and DPEIS to the public in a timely manner 

represents a violation of NEPA requirements. Wespac took "Final Action" on the FEPs prior to 

the close of public comment on the DPEIS which was ostensibly designed to solicit public input 

on whether FEPs should be promulgated, and if so, which type ofFEPs should be promulgated-

(i.e. which federal regulatory actions should be taken). The Draft FEPs, proposing federal 

regulatory actions, were released one month prior to the DPEIS. The Final FEPs were not released 

to the public until two working days prior to the start of "public hearings." 

5. Error-riddled documents. The FEPs upon which Wespac voted were riddled with what one 

Wespac member called "absolute inaccuracies."3 According to State representatives, the 

Hawaiian Archipelago FEP contains "numerous factual and typographic errors" which "indicate 

that the document is far from ready from final approval." The state representative presented 

examples including fifteen instances of species or entire families of organisms listed for Hawaii 

which "do not occur in the Hawaiian archipelago. Now this is simply embarrassing ..... It's 

largely for the reputation of the Council as a whole that it shouldn't be endorsing documents like 

this before they're correct." 4 

"Essentially, our take on it is that the State ofHawai'i has a certain amount of scientific 

integrity to uphold in this process and given that we have identified serious problems with 

the document as it stands, given that the NOAA representative has acknowledged those 

problems, given that several other Council members have also found those problems or 

other problems that we didn't see, it seems that there are a fair number of people on this 

Council who realize that this document is simply not ready for final action. And we 

2 Letter from Wespac member, Governor's representative, Chair ofHawai'I Department of Land and Natural Resources, Peter 

Young to Kitty Simonds, December 2, 2005, statements by Dan Polhemus, DLNR, Fred Duerr (Wespac member), Rick 

Gaffney (Wespac member), Wespac meeting, December 20, 2005. 3 Rick Gaffney, Wespac member, recreational fisher, statement on December 20, Wespac meeting (by telephone). 

4 Dr. Dan Polhemus, Director, Department of Aquatic Resources, DLNR. December 20, 2005. Wespac 

meeting, Honolulu. 

2 
simply do not understand why it is being rushed to final action and we do not see any 

benefit to the Council by doing this. And therefore we are not going to support this motion. 

We are not going to support final action on this document." - Dr. Dan Polhemus, Director, 

Department of Aquatic Resources, DLNR. December 20, 2005. Wespac meeting, 

Honolulu. 

6. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) and FEPs call for violations of 

existing rules and the Executive Order which established the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. 

For example, despite a ban on coral harvesting in the NWHI Reserve and a Record of Decision by NOAA 

forbidding any such harvest, both the DPEIS (pg. 165) and the FEP for the Hawaiian Archipelago ( pg. 

117) describe coral harvesting quotas and activities for banks in the NWHI. The DPEIS fails to mention 

in its description on permitting ( pg. 164) that Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP permits may not be issued for 

the NWHI (to do so would violate the EOs and NMFS rules). Despite the fact that the NWHI lobster 

fishery is closed under a permanent injunction and Executive Order, there are ten pages of discussion of 

details regarding the NWHI lobster fishery, including the fact that Wespac rules allow the taking of eggbearing female lobster and undersized juveniles ("retain all fishery") in the overfished waters of the 

NWHI (where the spiny lobster population has plummeted) but forbid the take of egg-bearing females and 

undersized juveniles in the Main Hawaiian Islands. 

7. Wespac utilization of public funds for misleading claims regarding "agency" status. Our 

understanding is that Wespac is a Council authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is not a federal 

agency, therefore not liable to face lawsuits for its actions. However, Wespac has apparently been 

utilizing public funds to declare that it is a federal agency, including in Wespac's announcement regarding 

the FEP "public hearings," published in the Honolulu Advertiser on December 11, 2005. This "Notice of 

Public Hearings and Public Meetings," bearing the official Wespac seal, states that "The Council is the 

policy-making agency for offshore waters around the U.S. Pacific islands." However, both the State of 

Hawai'i and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service make policy regarding "offshore waters around the U.S. 

Pacific Islands." A quick survey ofWespac's website identifies other occasions when Wespac has 

distributed press releases and other materials to the public claiming that it is a federal agency (for example 

in November 2002, March and November, 2005, etc.) At the December 20, "public hearing" in 

Honolulu, the Environmental Defense/Hawai'i representative asked for clarification from the NOAA 

Fisheries, PIRO Administrator regarding whether Wespac was or was not an agency. The NOAA 

Administrator responded that Wespac is, indeed, not a federal agency. No information was forthcoming 

regarding why the Council continues to misrepresent itself to the public as a federal agency (apparently 

utilizing federal funds to do so) or what steps NOAA intends to take regarding this misrepresentation and 

apparent misuse of federal funds. 

8. Violation of Council member duties under the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. 

All W espac Council members have taken the federal oath: 

• "as a duly appointed member of a regional fishery management Council established under the 

Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, [to] hereby promise to conserve 

and manage the living marine resources of the United States of America by carrying out the 

business of the Council for the greatest overall benefit of the nation;" 

• "to serve as a knowledgeable and experienced trustee of the nation's marine fishery resources, 

being careful to balance competing private or regional interests, and always aware and protective 

of the public interest in those resources;" 

3 
• to "commit yourself to uphold the provisions, standards and requirements of the Magnuson -

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable law, and to conduct 

yourself at all times according to the rules of conduct prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce." 

Those Council members (and members of the public) who were "knowledgeable and experienced" 

regarding the Hawaiian archipelago ecosystem pointed out the many flaws and factual errors in the 

Hawaiian archipelago FEP (see December 20 Wespac meeting transcript excerpts). A Hawai'i Council 

member stated: "I, too, would be embarrassed to go to a public hearing having voted on something like 

this that's inaccurate. Someone's going to stand up and say well how could you, you're supposed to be 

knowledgeable about this, how could you possibly have voted for this?"5 

Wespac Chair, Frank McCoy of American Samoa, led the effort to override the concerns of those with 

knowledge and experience in Hawai'i regarding Hawai'i ecosystems. He was assisted by a Council 

member from Guam who joined the meeting late. 

Given the lack of documentation provided to the public prior to hearings and the lack of analysis of public 

input prior to decision-making and given the confusion regarding the topic of the "public hearings" on the 

part of the public it is difficult to see how Wespac members voting to take "Final Action" on the FEPs 

were acting in accordance with their oath to be "always aware and protective of the public interest in 

those resources." 

A Hawai'i Council member, concerned about the tremendous factual inaccuracies, including those in the 

species list for Hawai'i, expressed concern that an opportunity for discussion and correction of the errors 

was not provided in the Council meeting. Of the four Hawai' i "civilian" members, only two were present 

at the Honolulu meeting - one owns companies convicted of poaching in the NWHI; the other cut off 

discussion by immediately proposing a lengthy resolution to take Final Action, accept the FEPs, provide 

further input and then to allow "staff' to rewrite the error-riddled FEPs on their own, apparently not 

subject to any further Council oversight, votes, or public comment. The lengthy "surprise" resolution 

promoted by this member was located on a Wespac staff member's laptop. The staff member then 

presented it to the Council. None of the members on the phone could see the text of the resolution. The 

two Hawai'i members connected by telephone expressed strong concerns about giving staff"carte 

blanche" to do what they pleased. One Hawai'i member stated that it was like giving the staff (which had 

produced the original inadequate documents) a "blank check" to do anything they wanted. 

Appendix A: 

Timeline of events pertaining t o development of Fishery Ecosystem Plans and DPEIS 

Compiled by Stephanie Fried, Environmental Defense I Hawai'i6 

5 Fred Duerr, Wespac member, December 20 meeting, Honolulu (comment by telephone). 6 This is only a partial timeline of recent events relating to the FEPs and the DPEIS. Additions and corrections warmly 

welcomed. Please send comments to stephf@environmentaldefense.org. 

4 
Sept. 30, 2005. Release of Draft FEPs. (Hawaiian Archipelago FEP missing Chapters 7 and 10), missing 

until at least Dec. 7 from public versions of document. 

Oct. 27. DPEIS released, approximately one month after the preferred alternative FEPs were released. 

DPEIS describes shift from Fishery Management Plans to Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEP) and proposes a 

range of alternative configurations for each proposed FEP -- including objectives, boundaries, lists of 

species to be managed (Management Unit Species). The deadline for written comments is December 19, 

2005. 

Nov. 10. Federal register notice states that deadline for public comment on DPEIS is now December 26, 

2005. 

Nov. 11. Wespac meeting in Guam. Council votes that final approval of FEPs will occur at next Wespac 

meeting in March 2006. Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources indicates to Wespac that 

FEP for Hawaiian archipelago is missing entire sections. 

Nov. 28. Federal register notice announces Wespac Council meeting (to be held by teleconference) on 

December 20 and "public hearings" in Hawai'i, beginning December 12. The December 20 meeting -

apparently an emergency meeting -- is not listed on Wespac's calendar of meetings for 2005, posted on 

Wespac website (www.wpcouncil.org). No topic is listed for the "public hearings", so it is unclear if the 

hearings are on the DPEIS or the FEPs. The agenda indicates that the meeting is held to take "Final 

Action" on FEP objectives, boundaries, management unit species designation, structure of advisory 

bodies, etc., in contrast to Council decision of November 11, which approved a March 2006 Final Action 

vote. 

Dec. 2. Peter Young, Governor's representative to Wespac, Chair of the State ofHawai'i Department of 

Land and Natural Resources, writes to Kitty Simonds expressing "complete surprise" regarding the 

proposed Wespac Dec. 20 emergency meeting to vote on "final acceptance" of the FEPs; rejects meeting 

as inappropriate and calls for a postponement, given Council vote of November 11. The letter indicates 

that: 

"There has been no justification provided as to the need for such an "emergency" action in this 

regard as defined under section 305( c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act." 

The State's letter describes the fact that, as of December 2, DLNR has still not yet received a complete 

draft of the Hawaiian archipelago FEP and could not possibly provide comments in time for the Dec. 20 

meeting. Missing from the Hawaii Archipelago FEP were chapters titled; "Chapter 10. Draft regulations 

for the Hawaii Archipelago FEP" and "Chapter 7. Integration of ecosystem approaches to fisheries 

management in the Mariana [sic] Archipelago FEP." The letter also underscored that "most Council 

members will be unable to personally attend the meeting" due to "proximity to the Christmas holiday 

season," and notes that holding a meeting by phone conference would "clearly limit the opportunity for 

debate." The State representative then detailed egregious errors found in a preliminary assessment of 

portions of the draft received by the state, expressed concern about Wespac' s proposal to "expand the 

boundaries" of the FEPs despite the fact that the FEP boundaries already make up U.S. EEZ waters and 

that expansion could come at the expense of the state or international waters. [Note: or perhaps U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife refuges]. The State's representative also indicated that there was insufficient time for DLNR 

staff to "a) review the document, b) forward it back to WESPAC for revisions, and then c) receive a 

revised version from WESPAC to assess to what extent our revisions had been addressed." 

5 
Dec. 6. KAHEA attorney calls Wespac office seeking clarification on the subject matter of the "public 

hearings." Wespac staffer, Eric Kingma indicates to her that "the official deadline for public comments is 

December 26, but they would 'really like it' ifwe could get our comments in by Dec. 19 because on the 

20th they have their Council meeting where they are going to be approving the FEPs." The attorney asks 

whether Wespac is "Approving the EIS already?" Kingma responded that "the EIS and the FEPs are 

related, so comments on the EIS would be taken to improve the FMPs." 

Dec.6. State of Hawai'i, Department of Land and Natural Resources receives copies of the missing 

Chapters 7 and 10 from the Hawai'i Archipeago FEP. (According to testimony delivered Dec. 20, by state 

representative at Wespac hearing.) 

Dec. 6. EPA federal register notice amends final comment date for DPEIS. New deadline is Dec. 27 

instead of Dec. 26. Federal register notice indicates that this information is posted on NOAA PIRO 

website. As of December 26, this information is NOT posted on NOAA PIRO website. Wespac website 

still (as of Dec. 26) claims Dec. 26 deadline. The change of date is discovered by an environmentalist on 

Dec 26. 

Dec. 7. (Wednesday) New versions ofFEPs, dated December 1, are posted on the Wespac website, at the 

end of the day. This is the first time that members of the public are able to see the documents. There is no 

announcement about the posting of the documents. They are "discovered" by accident by 

environmentalists examining the Wespac website. The Hawai'i FEP is 299 pages long; the Pacific 

Remote Island Areas FEP is 232 pages long; there are 3 other FEPs. These FEPs, totaling over 1,200 

pages, are the heart of the regulatory changes proposed in the DEIS -- in fact, the DPEIS presents a list of 

alternative FEP configurations and a preferred alternative. 

Dec. 9. Environmental Defense representative calls Wespac office to obtain information on the topic of 

the hearings: FEPs or DPEIS? Receptionist is unable to provide any clarification and indicates that it is 

necessary to speak to an expert, who is in a meeting. 

Dec. 11 (Sunday) Wespac announcement of public hearings published in Honolulu Advertiser lists 

hearings on FEPs in five locations in Hawai'i and states that "The Council is the policy-making agency 

for offshore waters around the U.S. Pacific Islands." No mention is made of the DPEIS. 

Dec. 12 (Monday). First Wespac "public hearing" is held in Hilo. However, the lengthy FEPs which will 

be voted on by Wespac have only been available for less than two work days (Thursday and Friday). 

Despite Wespac advertisements of the hearing, linking it to another meeting where threats of 

bottomfishing closures in the Main Hawaiian Islands are made, attendance is sparse. 

Dec. 13 Wespac "public hearing" in Kona. Three people testify. 

Dec. 14. Hawai'i DLNR receives a new, different and "complete" FEP document, two days after public 

hearings have begun. Wespac Chair, Frank McCoy writes to DLNR that, contrary to State's assertion, the 

Dec. 20 meeting is "not an 'emergency' meeting, it is a regular Council meeting." He does not explain 

why the meeting is not listed on the Wespac annual calendar, nor why it is a half-day meeting, instead of 

the normal four-day Wespac meeting, nor why it is held by teleconference. He responds to DLNR 

concerns about the lack of time for them to read, respond to, and check Wespac corrections in response to 

DLNR submissions by stating that "Council staff are preparing an errata that will be sent to all Council 

members for their review prior to the December 20 Council meeting. This approach facilitates an easy 

review of the revised text." No mention is made regarding how the public will be able to see the latest 

revisions, including the "errata" to the FEPs prior to public comment. 

6 
Dec. 15. Hearing in Kahului, Maui. 

Dec. 20 Wespac meeting to take "Final Action" on the FEPs. Honolulu "public hearing" on FEPs. Four 

members of the public testify. Only two "civilian" (non-agency) Council members are present in 

Honolulu one, the Vice Chair, has owned companies convicted of poaching in the NWHI; 

Dec. 20. At the W espac meeting, an eight page document, dated December 15 and titled, "Errata" , with 

"new or revised text" "to clarify information in the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plans dated December 1, 

2005" was made available in hard copy format to members of the public who attended the hearing. It 

appeared to be largely a response to the DLNR letter of December 2. Members of the public attending 

other hearings apparently did not have access to this document. As of December 26, the "Errata" 

document has still not been posted on the Wespac website. 

Dec. 27. Close of public comment on the DPEIS. 

Appendix B. 

Unofficial transcript of Wespac meeting, December 20. 

Transcribed from recording by S. Fried. 

[ appended as separate Word file] 

7 
Appendix B. 

Unofficial transcript of Wespac meeting, December 20. 

Transcribed from recording by S. Fried. 

Given the time constraints, there was not enough time to transcribe the entire session. Notes are 

made where transcription is incomplete. Transcription begins at opening of meeting, when call is 

made to discuss and approve the proposed meeting agenda. 

Dan Polhemus, Representative of the State of Hawai'i, Head, Division of Aquatic Resources, 

DLNR: This is Dan Polhemus representing the State ofHawai'i, Division of Aquatic Resources. We 

question the reason for having final approval ofFEPs on today's agenda. We have three basic reasons for 

this. First, the Council - at its 129th meeting in Guam -- voted to have final approval of these plans at its 

next meeting in March in order to provide sufficient time for public comment and editing of these plans. 

We don't believe that holding final approval today provides sufficient time. One of our rationales for this 

is that we have going through the Hawai'i ecosystem plan draft that we received on the 6th of December in 

its final complete form and have found numerous factual and conceptual errors in this plan. We have 

brought these to the attention to Wespac. They have very graciously and in a timely manner corrected 

many of these, but in going through the document we find that many many additional errors remain. By 

giving final approval to these plans today in their current form, the Council essentially endorses these 

errors which we do not believe is the proper thing for the council to do. In addition we believe that public 

comment, at least for the citizens of the state of Hawaii has been seriously abbreviated and abridged in 

that it was only allowed for the public to comment within the last week on this plan. The plan has been in 

a state of evolution. We only received our corrections to our first set of comments on this plan on Dec 6. 

[Transcriber's note: actual date Dec 14, DP corrects this later, below]. By that point several public 

comment meetings had already been held in Hilo and Kona. It is not at all clear to us that the public in 

certain meetings is seeing the same document as the public in other meetings. We also don't completely 

understand how you can hold public comment today in this meeting for this plan and then undertake final 

approval of this plan at the same meeting because we don't really understand how the public's comments 

will be incorporated in the plan prior to its final approval. Therefore, the state of Hawaii is asking that the 

final approval for these plans be withdrawn from the agenda at this time and reinstated in March as 

originally voted by the Council. Thank you. 

Chair, Frank McCoy (by telephone from American Samoa): 1 ;22:37 As you know, uh, we responded 

to Peter [Young, Director, DLNR]' s letter that answered some of those questions. Uh, you know, 

technically, this, it's, it's uh there's a feeling here that. .. evolving into this FEP management scheme, that 

some big things are gonna change. Well that, that is not correct. And I don't think we should have any 

reason not to, to go in there. We've had ample time to do this. We voted on it a year ago, over a year ago, 

to start looking into this process. So, to say that we didn't have time, to review this and review that, I'm 

not gonna accept that ... [laughter from audience in Honolulu] I'm gonna move on. The Samoan 

delegation and our management people here, there are some words in there that don't necessarily verify a 

lot of things but those are things we are going to run into with any management scheme as we go along 

and those are things we can correct along the way. This particular paper is not supposed to be written in 

stone to where nothing else can come along and change it. It's up to this Council to do so. We need to 

look, take a look at a broader view of what we're doing and, uh, in fact to do our responsibility under the 

MSA we, we are used to a single species, we, we would we're pretty much focused on a tunnel vision 

point of view. We need to broaden our view, we need to look a little, we need to take in what happens to 

some, at other little places, at different places. We need to seriously consider that, you know, we're all 

1 
part of this ecosystem and not just what we take from the ocean. We are part of the ocean. So, after having 

said that, uh, it's open for discussion. 

Rick Gaffney, Wespac member (Hawai'i), recreational fisher (by telephone): Mr. Chairman. 

Chair: Uh, who are you? 

Rick Gaffney: This is Rick Gaffney calling. Urn, let me apologize in advance to other Council members 

and the Chair as a newcomer to the Council process, you know, I haven't been there for previous votes, 

I'm not fully up and running on the process. First off I'd like to endorse statement by State of Hawai'i 

because I have all of the same concerns. I would also like to enter for the record, that I have in fact 

submitted a letter with a number of the things I thought were incorrect, or misstatements or inaccuracies 

or things that I didn't think were clearly explained enough. I sent that to Kitty Simonds as soon as I had 

an opportunity to review the version of the documents and I haven't had any response to that either in this 

eratta document or in any other way. I haven't even had the benefit of the kind of response that Peter 

Young's questions gave. It just seems to me that this process moving much too quickly. We were 

basically given 1000 pages of documentation to review in less than a week before this meeting and, you 

know, I don't work for the council full time. I don't have time to sit day and night and read all those 

documents. But I can tell you that the documents that I have read -- the one on the Hawaiian archipelago, 

the one on the FEPs in general, the one on the pelagic FEPs -- I find a number of questionable statements, 

a number of absolute inaccuracies. I don't feel comfortable with going ahead, with voting on these 

documents, approving these documents when there are all these inaccuracies. Number two, I don't 

understand what the rush is, I don't understand why we can't take the time to make these documents 

correct before we proceed. 

Bill Robinson, Pacific Islands Regional Office Administrator, NOAA (Honolulu): I just wanted to 

comment that the arguments that we have just heard from the state ofHawai'i and member Gaffney are 

legitimate points of view that should be considered by the Council in determining and deciding whether to 

approve the FEPs or not. As for whether we should proceed with the agenda or not, I think in order to 

consider those views, you need to proceed with the agenda. My recommendation is that we proceed with 

the agenda and have that debate as part of this meeting. 

Dan Polhemus: 1: 16 I wanted to correct one statement I made. And then follow up on Bill's comment. 

First my recollection was slightly incorrect. We received draft chapters of the missing chapters on 6 

December. We did not receive a complete document until the 14 of December, that is 6 days ago. By that 

time two public meetings for comment had been held, one on December 12 in Hilo and one on December 

13 in Kona. So it is hard to understand that the public could have possibly seen a revised document that 

we, in fact, had not received until the 14th . I also wish to state that the state ofHawai'i has no objection to 

ecosystem-based management. In fact, we endorse the concept. So we're not having any difficulty with 

that. Our issues lie entirely with this ecosystem fishery plan in its current form, which we simply feel has 

been rushed to completion and contains numerous inaccuracies. For instance, I have a copy here marked 

up by one of my biologists. It has approximately 15 little post-its in it that indicate places where it lists 

species within this ecosystem plan or families of organisms that do not occur in the Hawaiian archipelago. 

Now this is simply embarrassing. And if the Council gives final approval to a document like this, it once 

again is simply saying that it is willing to live with these errors and factual inaccuracies. And that's my 

concern. It's largely for the reputation of the Council as a whole that it shouldn't be endorsing documents 

like this before they're correct. I think in its vote in Guam, the Council did the correct thing. It gave itself 

until March to make sure that this plan is correct at which time I think there's no problem whatsoever in 

2 
going forward with it. I think you'll have a very properly edited document. I think as it stands today, it is 

completely inaccurate. Thank you. 

Chair, Frank McCoy: Does anybody else have some comments? 

Hawai'i Council Member, Fred Duerr (by telephone). Yes, this is Fred Duerr from Hawai'i. I would 

too have appreciated more time. I have not completely read all of the documents I have. Although in 

reading them I find that a lot if it seems to be broiler plate or redundant. I question too, the accuracy and 

some things that are left out. When we were in Guam, I recall a gentleman standing up and saying that the 

information we had was incorrect and the information we had gotten, part of it was credited to him. As I 

read through this I find some things I question and things that I think should be added, discussed. I, too, 

would be embarrassed to go to a public hearing having voted on something like this that's inaccurate and 

someone's going to stand up and say "How could you vote, you're supposed to be knowledgeable about 

this, how could you possibly have voted for this?" And I think we better go back and clean up the 

inaccuracies and do a little more research or have the people do a little more research for us or provide us 

with some of this information as [unintelligible] as possible. 

Chair: As we stated earlier, council members, this is only the beginning of a process. We"re gonna make 

mistakes, grant you that. We're not gonna create a perfect paper here, you know, that's the way it works, I 

mean. We gotta start off with something. We're not taking this for its value in this paper. We're supposed 

to use our original FMPs as guidelines. This is what's gonna guide us into this process and, uh, we're not 

just gonna discard what we have in place, uh, we, we, we're not putting in the so-called mistakes that 

everybody's calling mistakes. It's basically misplaced words and that kind of stuff. It's, you know, I 

don't see anything, uh, I don't, why would I, I'm the Chairman, I'm not ashamed to put this out. 

Bill Robinson, NOAA Piro Administrator: Mr. Chairman .. 

Chair: And that's the way the world works. People make mistakes. 

Bill Robinson: Mr. Chairman, this is Bill Robinson again. I'd just like to reiterate my earlier comment 

that we are having a substantive debate that should occur under Agenda item 3. We're on Agenda item 2 

which is approval of agenda. If we want to have the substantive debate, we should approve the agenda and 

get on with it. 

Ed Ebisui, Hawai'i member, in Honolulu at meeting: Mr. Chairman, this is Ed Ebisui. 

Chair: Ed, please go ahead. 

Ed Ebisui: Thank you. Um yeah, I support what Bill Robinson is saying and I think we ought to close 

discussion at this point and just have a vote on the draft agenda. I have things to say, but I think it more 

appropriate to that it should be done during the discussion phase and 

Chair: OK, ladies and gentlemen, I think we got uh, yeah, we got sidetracked. So we'll go ahead and let's 

approve the, let's do what we need to do with the first part, and uh where were we on that? There was a 

motion (1 :55), there was a second, there was a discussion of a proposal.. 

Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair: All those in favor, please communicate. 

3 
Ed Ebisui, yes; Sean Martin, yes; Bill Robinson, yes; American Samoa: 2 yes ; Guam; yes; CNMI; yes 

(2); Duerr yes; Gaffney ; No ; Dan Polhemus, No. 

Chair: We're now on agenda item 3, Fishery Ecosystem Plans, and uh, we're just gonna call on Council 

staff to present the items A through E. Then we'll get in there and take it up with them. Council staff, 

please. 

Summary, not transcript: Presentation by Jarad Makaiau, Wespac staff, on FEPs ensues - lengthy 

account of measures, modifications requested at 129th Council meeting and changes made to the Draft 

FEPs to produce the FEPs on which the Council is to vote. Describes 20 year effort to begin to consider 

"ecosystem management." Indicates that there is now an "errata document", dated December 15. 

Description of public comments on the DP EIS received up to the day prior to the Honolulu hearing 

(DPEIS comment period extends until Dec 27) and indicated that they had received 696 written comments 

primarily expressing concerns about the NWHI i.e. that FEPs undermine NWHI protections because 

they are not consistent with Executive Order, State of Hawai'i marine refuge rules; that the FEPs do not 

recognize the NWHI ecosystem; are based on single-species models; that insufficient time was provided 

for public review of FEPs; supporting a call for an Inspector General investigation of Wespac. 

Now we're going to Item 4: Public hearing. I'll tum this over to Vice Char Sean to conduct this hearing 

from there. 

Sean Martin, Wespac member, Hawai'i (Honolulu): Just for clarification purposes. If members of the 

public are in attendance at one of the sites around the region, we'd ask them to see the area coordinator 

and get a public comment card and fill that out. If you're wishing to make public comment and are on the 

phone we '11 accommodate that as well. I have no idea how many people we'll have in the remote areas or 

on the phone. We'll ask that you limit your comments to 3 minutes. At the end of 3 minutes, I'm going to 

ask Council staff, with a bell or something her to notify us that the time is up (bell rings). If I hear the 

bell. My intent is to go around to the regions in the following order. Arn Samoa, CNMI, Guam and 

Hawai'i. ... 34:58. 

American Samoa? Frank, do you have anybody in attendance there? 

Chair: No comment from Arn. Samoa. 

Sean Martin: CNMI? 

Sablan, CNMI (by phone): yes. Mr. (unintelligible) would like to comment. 

Mr . ... : I jus t want to extend my support for the whole idea. I'm intrigued. I'm hoping this thing is 

corning through. I' rn in full support of it. I just want to extend that. Thank you. 

Guam: Frank Tibits (?) Can you hear me? Thank you. My comment concerns boundaries ofFEPs. 

Marianas plan appears, from memory 0 - 200, same for Guam; ours is 3 - 200. Seems that local 

regulatory agencies might be giving up some control from 0 - 3. We do not want to be losing regulatory 

authority from Oto 3. The FEP should just be from 3 - 200 for Guam. 

Jarad Makaiau: I can respond to that. The Marianas language is EEZ. That's defined in MSA. There are 

some jurisdictional issues. By using MSA language it falls into the definition of what the EEZ is, 

recognized as 3 - 200 nautical miles. 

Sean Martin: Hawaii: First I'd like to call Joe Detley. 

4 
Joe Detly: Rick Gaffney are you there? Congratulations, Rick. My comments all have to deal with what 

definition of fish. I was just looking at this public hearing and council meting that came in the mail. I had 

an interesting experience in June trolling up to the NWHI and back. And on this trolling expedition which 

basically was strictly pelagic, we had to discard, probably in terms of poundage, maybe a third of our total 

catch which consisted of those things in the NWHI which were defined as bottomfish, that is kahala, 

rainbow runner, uku and ulua and I'm looking here that they're talking about reducing bottomfish catch in 

MHI and considering area closures at Penguin Bank, Middle Bank and summer seasonal closures 

throughout MHI. It's important I think to also take, if this comes about, to take kahala, uku and rainbow 

runner and ulua off the bottomfishing plan and put it over in pelagics. Otherwise you're going to run into 

a lot of discarded bycatch. I'm sure Rick know we catch a lot of kahala off the grounds ofKona,live 

baiting for ahi and marlin, not that that's avery valuable fish. But it just kinda violates the basic rules of 

fishery management to have the rules in place that would force me for no reason at all to throw away 

maybe two to three thousand pounds of fish caught pelagic trolling just because of an erroneous 

definition. And, that's it for me. 

Cha Smith, Kahea: [Summary, not transcript] 26:59 Testifying on behalf of 2,000 people part ofKahea 

network throughout Hawai'i. We will be submitting written testimony. Violation ofNEPA, public is 

being locked out of this process in numerous ways, some of which has been pointed out to you by swtate 

and federal officials, members of the Council. Serious errors and flaws. Procedural flaws made it virtually 

impossible for public to have any kind of meaningful contribution to this process. Honolulu hearing -

during a work day (unlike neighbor island hearings), in holiday season. Are you trying to make it 

impossible for people to come? It's very difficult for people to come during the work day? I'd certainly 

like ot hear your rationale for that. Inspector General request for investigation. People feel like enough is 

enough. We support call for full public investigation. State refuge. Need to treat NWHI as an ecosystem. 

Current DPEIS will not provide level of protection needed throughout the NWHI. US F&W boundaries 

must be respected, not weakened or eroded. Wespac's a bit out of step (three minute bell rings on the 

phone) No reason for this "fast forward" - errors, need to start the hearings over, allow adequate time for 

public input, appropriate hearings. 

Marti Townsend: [Summary, partial transcript] 20:00. Looking over the document. Listen to suggestion 

of State of HI and council members and allow enough time for public comment. NEPA violation. Need to 

stop what you're doing. Freeze. Correct the mistakes. Republish the document and re-start the clock on 

public comment. 90 day instead of 60 day public comment period (this is ecosystem plan, different from 

FMPs). This council should not be voting on this document at this time. Thank you. 

Stephanie Fried: (partial transcript/partial summary-missing parts) Environmental Defense. Thank you 

for this opportunity to spend three minutes of time expressing an opinion on 1200 pages of documents 

that were presented, one draft of which was presented to the public on Wespac's website last Wednesday 

at close of business. Public hearings began in Hawai'I on Monday, that's two working days afterwards. 

There is no conceivable way that there could be informed public input on this set of documents through 

this process. I would also like to state that we heard Governor Lingle's representative strongly object to a 

vote in this meeting and heard the federal agency representative say that those concerns were legitimate. 

We second those concerns I 7:34 and have strong concerns about the NEPA process being followed. 

NEPA does require public input and again there is no way that the hearings that were held last week could 

provide public input on a 1200 page document htat we had not seen. I was very interested to hear from the 

State's representative that other documents came out on December 14. Of course, we haven't seen those. 

This morning I saw an errata document but of course I haven't been able to read that. I have looked at 

some of these plans and they are loaded with errors. There are so many errors. I'd like to go through some 

of this information. I hope you will bear with me and we will be trying to submit written comments. 

5 
Although I would like to call upon the NMFS representative to consider extending the December 26 

deadline for comments on the DEIS because frankly the heart of the DEIS is these FEPs and there is 

absolutely no way to have a good detailed analysis of these plans done and there's been no public hearing 

process on these. I echo the state's call for a March vote on these, proceeded by a full and open period of 

public comment. One of the disadvantages of holding an emergency meeting such as this by telephone is 

that those of you on the phone are unable to see in the audience that there are a number of people standing 

around holding signs saying "Investigate Wespac", "Save the monk seals/ Stop Overfishing", "Protect our 

Oceans", "Stop the deception, investigate Wespac". If you were here in person, you would see this. 

The process leading to this meeting is a textbook example of why a federal investigation of W espac is 

fully warranted. I'd like to submit as part of my testimony, for the record, the request by the Oahu Game 

Fish Club and the Waianae Boat Fishing Club for an IG investigation. [Bell rings.] I hope you don't mind 

if I continue ....... [not enough time to transcribe this material]; .... we don't even know what documents 

are being voted on because we haven't even seen any of the corrected versions. We don't know what is 

actually, what we're supposed to be commenting on ..... Concerned re FEP boundary "expansion"; lack 

of need for "emergency" meeting; 

0:13:52 We call for a complete redoing of this process. We want to see an actual corrected document, not 

something that is so riddled with errors on the science, on the policy. We want to see a fully corrected 

document presented to the public, for public comment with enough time in advance to be able to read the 

document. Two working days is certainly not enough time to process all of this material. We want to see 

the NEPA process followed. And we're very very concerned that final action will be taken today. We're 

also concerned, and this is just looking through the DEIS document. This DEIS document appears to be 

promoting coral harvesting in the NWHI. There is a list of banks for which there are harvest quotas -

Brooks Bank, etc. It appears to be promoting lobster fishing in the NWHI. We're not sure how, in the 

light ofNOAA's recent rejection of these sorts of plans for the proposed sanctuary how this works. It 

seems to us that these FEP plans that we've seen so far are almost fake ecosystem plans. I can't think of a 

nicer word. They appear to be all of the same old single species plans just cobbled together, gift wrapped 

with a new name and presto, that's an Ecosystem Plan. We don't see any of the complexities that you'd 

need to deal with in an ecosystem. This whole process has been fraught with confusion. We're under the 

impression, and maybe I can ask the NMFS representatives to clarify, we're under the impression that 

Wespac is not an agency. We're under the impression that Wespac is a federal advisory council but not an 

agency. Is that correct? 

Bill Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's right Magnuson Stevens Act establishes the Councils as 

federal entities which are advisory bodies. 

Stephanie Fried: Right, to an agency, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service. So that's why we 

were very confused to see Wespac's announcement of the hearings stating that it is the policy making 

agency for offshore waters of the US Pacific. 

Sean Martin: Any comments from American Samoa, Guam CNMI; Any telephone commenters from 

state of Hawaii. In that case, East Coast of US? West Coast of US? Any international guests that would 

like to make comments? Any telephone commentors from anywhere? 

Chair: We'll open the meeting to Council discussion. 

Ed Ebisui: Mr. Chairman, this is Ed Ebisui. Mr. Chairman, Ed Ebisui. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. 

Please. One moment, I'm going to ask Jarad to get it up on the screen here. Ok, Mr Chairman, my motion 

is that the Council adopt the FEP Objectives, Boundaries, Management Unit Species, Structure of Council 

6 
advisory bodies and regional coordination and community participatoin. Prior t o transmitting to NMFS 

for review and approval , task council staff with working with NMFS to correct typos, errors, clarify any 

confusing language, allow DLNR to review Hawaii FEP and work to respond to any further concerns, 

respond to public comments, as appropriate, and coordinate with NMFS implementation schedule 

regarding other regulatory issues that are in process. That is my motion, Mr. Chairman. 

Ben,CNMI: Mr. Chairman, CNMI, second the motion. 

Chair: we have a second. For discussion. Ed can you please read it out so corrections can be made. 

Ed Ebisui: [reads the motion again] [busy signal comes on loudly, apparently disconnecting council 

members from phone conference.] 

Chair: Calls for break in meeting, voice drowned out by busy signal. 

BREAK 

Meeting resumes: 

Chair: it's just what we're, what we're gonna to do. 

6/ 3/13:08 Rick Gaffney: I have a problem with the fact that we're being asked to vote on something 

that's called a "Final Action." We're being asked to accept the FEP objectives 1 - 10 are precisely the 

way we want them. We're being asked to state that the FEP boundaries are precisely the way we want 

them, as Council Members. We're being asked to vote that the Management Unit Species are absolutely 

correct and in my reading of the documents, I can't do that. I have problems with all of those specifics and 

I think it's really really too early. I'm not willing to give carte blanche by voting in advance for a 

document that may be corrected and my concerns may or may not be incorporated. So that's my doubt at 

this point. I have a problem with accepting everything. I was hoping that as part of the council discussion 

process we could get answers to some of our questions. We could talk about the specific language of 

some of the objectives, talk about the list of MUS' s and try to get some of this stuff straightened out 

before we voted on it today. I didn't expect an early motion which was asking us, as I understand it, 

basically to give carte blanch to council staff to proceed to finish a document that we have pre-approved. 

And I don't think that's an appropriate action. 

Ben Sablano from Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands: Mister Chairman, I'd like to call 

for the question. 

Laughter from the audience. 

Chair: Ben are you still [unintelligible]. You know Rick I have no, any particular thing to say but that's 

the Council process. That's why council members get together and uh take on this responsibility 

[unintelligible] whether they agree or disagree on something. That's the priveledge given to us. Up to 

each individual to take it to heart and [unintelligible] use your common sense [ unintelligible ]that's your 

freedom too, as you wish. Any further comments? 6/43:43 

Ed Ebisui: Mr. Chair this is Ed Ebisui. The only advice I have for Rick is that in my experience I've been 

on the losing end of many votes. But that's the way it is. The council has also reconsidered action too. So 

, it's all part of the process. Thank you. 

7 
Rick Gaffney: If I might respond. I appreciate the input from council Chair and Ed Ebisui whom I've 

known for many hears and I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge of council process and so 

forth. I'm new to this process and I apologize if I'm making it more difficult for some people. I just feel 

like this FEP thing that we're stepping into, which I support 100%, is so important that we get it right. 

We're making a major transition, as Jarad pointed out. 

For 20 years, the Council has been talked to by the government about making the transition from speciesbased to place-based management. That's what we're doing. If you start that process with a flawed 

document, I really think we're making a mistake. I think we'll be a laughingstock in the public's eye and I 

just don't think it's appropriate. No one has explained to me why there's a rush to complete these Final 

Actions in today's meeting and why we can't ask the staff to go back and take some of these inputs from 

the state, from Council members and from the general public and fix them and come back and vote on this 

at the next Council meeting in March. I just feel like there's a rush to judgment here and I don't see the 

rush when the process has been twenty years long so far. Why are we forcing the situation in two weeks? 

It just doesn't make sense to me. 

6 41 32 Dan Polhemus: Dan Polhemus, State ofHawai'i. I would like to comment and then I'll stop 

[unintelligible]. Essentially, our take on it is that the State of Hawai' i has a certain level of scientific 

integrity to uphold in this process and given that we have identified serious problems with the document 

as it stands, given that the NOAA representative has acknowledged those problems, given that several 

other Council members have also found those problems or other problems that we didn't see, it seems that 

there are a fair number of people on this Council who realize that this document is simply not ready for 

final action. And we simply do not understand why it is being rushed to final action and we do not see 

any real benefit to the Council by doing this. And therefore we are not going to support this motion. We 

are not going to support final action on this document. 

Chair: Thank you for the comment. Do we have any more? 

Sean Martin: Just a question for Council member Gaffney. Are there specific items in the document, I 

know you've articulated that you haven't really had time to read it, are their some specifics that stand out 

for you? It's just a question. You know to kind of get a flavor of what some of the things are that you may 

be referring to? 

Rick Gaffney: Yeah, ifl may, Mr. Chair may I respond. 

[Silence] 

Rick Gaffney: Mr. Chair, Rick Gaffney, may I respond? 

Frank Mc Coy: Yeah go ahead. 

Rick Gaffney: (partial transcript of Gaffney' s detailed list of concerns). Yes, Sean I appreciate your 

opening that up. And I'm not even sure if it's appropriate under the current motion. I was going to take 

each of these items. I have language changes I'd like considered for the objectives 39:45 ... The MUS 

section in every one of the plans that I've read has errors in it. ... Based on commercial harvest, not on the 

ecosystem. We're adopting a subset of the ecosystem and that doesn't make any sense to me. I found 

Chapter 7 in every one of the FMPs to be very non-definitive. Those are the kinds of things I'd like to 

spend time going through. I've already submitted one list to Kitty and asked for those to be considered. 

8 
37 35Dan Polheums: State ofHawai'i. I just wanted to point out one more example of the problems. This 

is in terms of just W espac not keeping its own actions straight. In our draft of the Hawaii FEP the 

discussion of the black coral fishery, the size and height exemption language that fishermen previously 

harvested in state waters is still retained even though the Council took Final Action and removed this 

exemption at its 129th meeting in Guam. So at the very least, the FEP should at least reflect the current 

Wespac policies which it clearly doesn't. And once again, this simply indicates that this document is 

being rushed to completion and Wespac can't even keep its own policies straight inside its own document. 

Chair. Any more comments? We're gonna have a couple more comments and then we're gonna put this 

thing to a vote. We're gonna call. 

Ray American Samoa; Mr Chairman, I'd like make a motion [unclear] territorial jurisdiction participates 

in making corrections. 

Fred Duerr: I've got a problem. lfwe vote for this, it's approved. What we're doing is we're saying is 

that we agree with whatever our staff comes up with. And even though we get to review it, we've already 

voted that we've accepted it. And it's like writing a blank check. I have a hard time writing a blank check 

and letting somebody fill in the amount. I would like to withhold my vote and see the document and have 

an opportunity to vote on what's really there rather than vote that I'm accepting whatever we come up 

with. 

Chair: Uh, Fred, uh, I don't, uh I think this a misunderstanding here, uh when we saying this, we will be 

working with NMFS and NOAA and State of Hawaii and other entities, American Samoa Department of 

Fisheries, you know, I think we're not saying they're going to do whatever they want to tell us. I mean 

this is exactly what the council is for, to look after the interests of all of our constituency, including you 

know the indigenous people.That's what we're gonna do. 

Fred Duerr: Yes, I guess, I, I guess I 

Chair: We're not signing away a blank check, you know. We're already allowing participation to clarify 

any confusing language that may exist. I mean, there's nothin' wrong with it. We can't keep uh discussing 

it, we're discussing it here. 

Fred Duerr: I understand that but maybe I just can't get it into my thick head that when we're taking 

Final Action, we're voting Final Action, and then we're saying that we're going to have staff make 

changes and yes, you can have some input but does that input, does it come back to the Council again? 

Do we get to review it? And vote on it again? What if we don't like it? What ifwe still don't feel that it 

satisfies ... 3 3 3 5 

Chair: Well, that's the process. That's the process. Thank you. Did I hear someone else there? 

Manny: It's Manny from Guam. 

Chair: Haven't heard from you, Manny. 

Manny: I've been absorbing all the information from everyone and its disheartening that this document is 

being discussed over and over again. The thing that bothers me the most is that it's only a plan. And this 

plan provides for amendments to previous plans, to plans that we have on our shelves. This plan is gonna 

go through many changes in the future and the only thing I appreciate most about this plan is the tie-in of 

everything, everybody, all the stakeholders worked together on this plan. That's what really bothers me, 

coming from the islands, is that we have the federal side on one side, we have local government on one 

9 
side and we have other people in between. And now we're going to put everybody together and vote as 

one big stakeholders meeting. It seems to me that people don't like that idea. They have a different 

agenda. They want to keep their own little kingdom and that really bothers me. Because the people that 

suffer the most are people that use the water, the families, the fishermen, the subsistence fishermen of this 

island are gonna suffer continuously because of other impacts that we're not addressing because we say 

that the line of demarcation that goes from 0 to 3 belongs to you and 3 to 200 belongs to me. And we 

can't have dialogue. And that's all this plan is doing is providing for dialogue. And I think that all the 

people that have concerns, or problems, they have those problems. But I think we need to move forward. 

And to have this fishery ecosystem. And when we go to a council meeting and we discuss one proposal 

by someone, it sometimes takes half an hour to finish one sentence. You can imagine how long, the fish 

would be gone, the users would be gone before this document ever gets approved if we're gonna follow 

that type of discussion, line by line. And with that in closing, Mr. Chairman, I call for the question 

because this discussion has gone too far. And I'm sorry that people wanna wait til March. But I can't wait 

til march because there'll be another meeting in June and then another meeting in October and that's too 

much, way to much to finish waiting for this thing to go. Like I said it's not set in stone and I don't know 

if it's considered a blank check because I have not seen anything that funds anything or a blank check in 

the sense that people can do what they want because there are limits to every document that we produce. 

We have to deal with all the people involved. We do not circumvent federal law. We do not circumvent 

local law. We work together with all the stakeholders. And as a stakeholder, highly involved in this issue 

on this island, I really am appalled by the fact that we're gonna keep postponing this issue. Because the 

land-based issue is not being addressed and it's gonna affect the arcipelagic inshore { }. But as long as 

we continue to argue this point over and over and time again, it's gonna be a total waste of time. I'm tired 

of talking through the telephone. Thank you. 

Chair: Thank you, Manny. Gentleman and Ladies of the council. 

Bill Robinson: Mr. Chairman, Bill Robinson. 

Chair: We can talk all day. We're still gonna all feel different about it though. 

Bill Robinson: Mr Chairman 

Chair: The Chair feels strongly that this is the way to go. We need to take a broader look and this 

opportunity is a way that allows us to do that. And it's up to you gentlemen, you vote your conscience, 

you vote what you concluded. But I'm gonna call for the question. 

Bill Robinson: Mr. Chairman, this is Bill Robinson, may I make a couple of comments. I've stayed out of 

it so far. 

Chair: Yeah, Bill. 

Bill Robinson: I think the, although I don't have any substantive structural issues with the adoption of 

the objectives, boundaries and management species, I would point out that the structure of the council 

advisory bodies and regional coordination are really Council policy issues, they're not federal actions that 

are subject to NEPA. So I think really the issue here is whether council members believe there are 

substantive issues with the objectives, boundaries or management unit species or whether the motion can 

be adopted and all of the non-substantive issues can be cleaned up by a staff-to-staff review by the state of 

Hawai'i, and other council members and to go forward. If you think that the concept, and let me back up a 

little bit: what these FEPs are not new FMPs and the old FMPs are not going away. They are amendments 

to the existing FMPs that simply re-organize and re-title the existing plans in such a way as they transition 

10 
from single species based plans to place-based plans. They set the ground work for further elaboration 

through further Council action, for example, changes in the MUS might be the next thing that the Council 

might contemplate, changes in boundaries might be the next thing that the Council might contemplate or 

methods for encorporating ecosystem processes might be the next thing that the Council might 

contemplate. 

This simply lays the groundwork for doing some of this so that's something to keep in mind. The 

comment was made that these are not fully mature evolved ecosystem plans and that's true. They are not. 

And it is true that there are still remaining issues and concerns that a number of us have. One concern that 

we have is jurisdictional issues. We want to make it very clear that the language in these FEPs does not 

cede any federal authority to communities, to states, to indigenous groups on a basis that would violate 

any principal federal laws or policies. By the same token we would want to make sure that the language is 

clear that the federal government is not usurping any authority that the territories or the states have the 

right to exercise and we, too, have some concerns about that and feel that those types of things have to be 

clarified, need to be clarified. 

The only issue at this point, as is so often the case, is whether the Council is comfortable going forward 

with basic substance of the FEPs: the boundaries, management species, objectives and allowing the basic 

clarifications and error corrections to be done by staff prior to transmitting it to the NMFS. Or whether the 

Council feels it needs to see each and every correction. I would only point out that I can't think of a single 

instance when an action was submitted by the Council to NOAA fisheries and we haven't gone back to 

the Council and said, "Well, there's a mistake here. This detail is wrong. Change this." Even, in every 

case, after the council takes final action there's always a need for some modification. I think, you know, at 

this point I won't say any more. I think that's really the issue before you. The way that it's structured, we 

have some confidence that we can work with Council staff to clear up any errors 24 21 and any of the 

concerns that NOAA Fisheries has with it. And I would think that by working with the state of Hawaii 

and giving them the opportunity to provide input on their concerns, that concern could be met too. Those 

are my thoughts. 

Chair: Well we have a motion and we've had a discussion and I'm gonna call for the question. 

3;13 Bill Robinson: Mr. Chair. This is Bill Robinson again. I just wanted to add one thing and that's that, 

uh, from NOAA Fisheries standpoint, we would not accept the document to start Secretarial review unless 

we were comfortable that the concerns that we have were fully addressed. 

Chair: [unintelligible] Wouldn't the modification come into consideration? 

Bill Robinson: Mr. Chairman, what I was saying was that the outcome of this motion, the staffs 

working together and the various reviews that produce the final documents that come to NOAA Fisheries, 

we still would have an opportunity to review those final documents and if we don't feel that they, uh, 

match up with what we think is an appropriately, a document that is of appropriate quality, we'd probably 

send it back to the Council for further work. 

Chair: Your concerns have been noted. 

11 
Advocates for Wild, Healthy Oceans 

December 20, 2005 

VIA e-mail to WPEAMPEIS@noaa.gov 

William L. Robinson 

Pacific Islands Regional Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1601 Kapiolani Boulevard 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

Subject: Draft Programmatic EIS 

Dear Mr. Robinson: 

2029 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

202.429.5609 Telephone 

202.872.0619 Facsimile 

www.oceanconservancy.org 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement Towards an Ecosystem Approach for the 

Western Pacific Region: From Species-based Fishery Management Plans to 

Place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans, dated October 27, 2005 (DPEIS). 

Although the overall goal of the document appears positive, the document is 

insufficient in that it does so little to improve the current management in the 

Western Pacific Region. As set forth below, this DPEIS suffers from serious 

flaws. 

The DPEIS itself states repeatedly that that the "measures being considered 

would reorganize the current fishery regulations by geographic area, but would 

not result in substantive changes to the existing regulations." (DPEIS at i). 

Further, the alternatives considered "are strictly institutional." (DPEIS at 219). 

NEPA requires that major Federal actions "significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment" contain a detailed statement of, among other things, "the 

environmental impact of the proposed action." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(i). Here, by 

defining the action too narrowly, the agency has failed to consider the full effects 

1 
on the human environment as required under NEPA. A switch to environmental 

planning must include full discussions and analyses of the interconnectedness of 

habitat and species as a unified whole. It must consider the food chain and 

possible disruptions to that chain. Only then will the quality of the effects on the 

human environment be fully discussed. 

The analysis, as is, ignores the essence of ecosystem planning, which is 

designed to force consideration of the interactions among various species. The 

agency and the fishery council simply omit the interactions among various 

species, putting this important analysis off for another day. This is, in fact, not 

ecosystem planning at all. 

Here, the ongoing reliance on the existing regulations indicates that continued 

single species management will continue. This ongoing use of the single species 

management model will guarantee the continuation of overfishing, collapses in 

stocks, and habitat destruction. That is most evident when it comes to the 

subject of bottomfishing in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The DPEIS is 

internally inconsistent and continues to discuss falsely the current state of fishing 

in the NWHI. The DPEIS states: "The 'pristine' condition of this resource is likely 

to continue, because they are distant from land based sources of pollution as 

well as protected from any large-scale human activities in the region." (DPEIS at 

137). However, the DPEIS also acknowledges that it was determined that the 

Hawaii Archipelago multi-species bottomfish complex was subject to overfishing 

as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, "with the Main Hawaiian Islands the 

area where the overfishing problem primarily occurs." (DPEIS at 139). The truth 

is that there is overfishing in the NWHI, as set out in the very documents issued 

by NOAA 1, and this ecosystem plan is an appropriate place to address this 

problem. Ignoring the problem and allowing the overfishing to continue is simply 

an attempt to bury the ongoing problem and violate the tenets of NEPA. 

In other areas, the DPEIS demonstrates the other problems of this area. The 

turtle populations are either listed as threatened or endangered. (DPEIS at 82-

90). The Hawaiian monk seals, with their entire population occurring on the 

NWHI, is well below its "optimum sustainable populations." Since 1985, "the 

overall population has declined approximately three percent per year." (DPEIS at 

92). Yet, the document refuses to analyze substantive measures to address 

these important environmental concerns. Instead, the DPEIS maintains that only 

procedural changes need be considered at this stage. Again, this is 

unacceptable under NEPA and flies in the face of common sense. What is 

1 By Federal Register Notice dated June 14, 2005, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

gave notice that it had made a determination that overfishing is occurring on the bottomfish multispecies stock complex around the Hawaiian Archipelago. See also May 27, 2005 letter from 

William Robinson, Regional Administrator of NMFS to Roy Morioka, Chairman of the Council, 

attached to the Federal Register Notice, and Appendix 5 of the Council's 2003 Annual Report on 

the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. 

2 
needed is full application of the ecosystem approach and not simply a procedural 

move in that direction. 

Thank you for consideration of our comments. 

Sincerely, 

Ellen Athas 

Director of Ecosystems Protection 

cc: Susan A. Kennedy 

Acting NEPA Coordinator 

nepa.comments@noaa.gov 

3 
December 26, 2005 

William L. Robinson 

Pacific Islands Regional Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

160 Kapiolani Boulevard 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

Mr. Robinson, 

MCBI 

MARINE 

CONSERVATION 

BIOLOGY 

-rurc 

This letter constitutes Marine Conservation Biology Institute's (MCBI) comments on Wespac's 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement: Towards an Ecosystem Approach for the 

Western Pacific Region: From Species-based Fishery Management Plans to Place-based Fishery 

Ecosystem Plans. As detailed below, MCBI has serious concerns about the legality and 

sufficiency of this document and Wespac's overall plan to replace FMPs with FEPs. 

Background 

Wespac has taken the first steps to move from fishery management plans (FMPs) to fishery 

ecosystem plans (FEPs ), in an attempt to implement ecosystem-based management. As part of 

this transition, Wespac has released and approved five FEPs: one for each of the four different 

regions under its jurisdiction, and one for the pelagics fishery, which Wespac describes as cutting 

across all of the different regions. At somewhat the same time, Wespac has been writing a 

programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) on whether to transition to FEPs, and if 

so, what the geographic boundaries and species covered in the FEPs should be. These comments 

are intended to address the glaring faults with the draft programmatic environmental impact 

statement, entitled "Towards an Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From 

Species-based Fishery Management Plans to Place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans." 

MCBI applauds moves away from the flawed species-managed plans currently in place in the 

Western Pacific and towards ecosystem-based management, as recommended by the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy and others. However, it is our view that Wespac's recent steps in 

the direction of ecosystem-based fisheries management are deeply flawed. We feel that the draft 

PEIS violates both NEPA and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation 

Act so extensively that it, and the FEPs that have already been approved by Wespac, should be 

withdrawn until a PEIS that does not violate existing law has been produced. 

NEPA Violations 

The draft programmatic environmental impact statement substantively violates NEPA. NEPA 

requires analysis of a potential action's environmental impacts prior to final decisionmaking. 

(42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).) In executing this analysis, NEPA's implementing regulations require 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 210 • Washington DC 20003-4344 USA 

phone: 1 202 546 5346 • fax: 1 202 546 5348 · www.mcbi.org 

I 00% unbleached post-consumer recycled paper 
that: "The [environmental impact] statement shall be prepared early enough so that it can serve 

practically as an important contribution to the decisionmaking process and will not be used to 

rationalize or justify decisions already made." (CEQ NEPA Regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 1502.5.) 

In the case of the draft PEIS and the FEPs, Wespac acted on the following dates: 

9/30/05 

10/27/05 

12/20/05 

Release of Draft FEPs (as of 12/7/05, the Hawaii Archipelago FEP was still 

missing chapter 7, "Integration of Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries 

Management in the Mariana Archipelago FEP" and chapter 10, "Draft 

Regulations for Hawaii Archipelago FEP") 

Release of draft Programmatic EIS on the move from FMPs to FEPs 

Public hearing held by Wespac in Honolulu on the draft FEPs (held 

simultaneously with the Wespac Council Meeting) 

Wespac took "final action" on the FEPs during its council meeting, approving the 

draft FEPs 

12/26/05 End of public comment period on the draft Programmatic EIS on whether and 

how to have FEPs in the Western Pacific region 

As can be seen, Wespac took "Final Action" on the fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs) prior even to 

closure of the public comment period for the draft P EIS. Wespac therefore finalized its 

decisionmaking substantially prior to finishing the PEIS process, a clear violation of NEPA. 

The timeline followed by Wespac in releasing the draft PEIS and taking final action on the FEPs 

indicates that the PEIS could not be informing Wespac's decisionmaking, because their 

decisionmaking has been completed before the PEIS analysis. This is completely contrary to the 

intent and requirements of NEPA. It is our understanding that the usual process for amending 

FMPs requires that the draft amendment not be issued prior to a draft EIS on alternatives for the 

amendment, and similarly, that the final amendment not be issued prior to the final EIS. Only by 

following such a timeline is the agency able to incorporate NEPA analysis into its decisionmaking. In this case, however, Wespac issued the draft FEPs prior to the draft PEIS, and has 

taken final action on the FEPs prior even to the close of the draft PEIS comment period. There 

has also been no comment period on the draft or final FEPs, only on the current draft PEIS. In 

confusion about how NEPA was being followed in this process, MCBI spoke with staff in both 

the NMFS PIRO office and Wespac; both staffers told MCBI that the usual NEPA process 

followed for FMP amendments was not being followed in this case, and both expressed 

confusion at what exactly was being done in this case. The NEPA process has been so abused in 

this case that it seems no one is clear on what the timeline is, or when public comment is being 

accepted for the FEPs as opposed to the draft PEIS. 

The entire process used by Wespac to decide how to implement ecosystem-based fisheries 

management is therefore flawed. We feel the only solution to this egregious violation is to 

withdraw the final FEPs until the final PEIS is completed. 

2 
Violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

Under Section 302 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the fishery management councils are required 

to establish fishery management plans (FMPs). 

Each Council shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Act - (1) for each fishery 

under its authority that requires conservation and management, prepare and submit to the 

Secretary (A) a fishery management plan, and (B) amendments to such plan that are 

necessary from time to time ... 16 U.S.C. 1852(h). 

In 1999, Congress mandated that NMFS write a report to set the stage for subsequent federal 

efforts to implement ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM). NMFS convened a panel 

of experts to assess the extent to which ecosystem principles are currently applied in fisheries 

research and management, and recommend how best to integrate these principles into future 

activities. This Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (EP AP) recommended that: 

Councils should continue to use existing Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for single 

species or species complexes, but these should be amended to incorporate ecosystem 

approaches consistent with an overall Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (FEP). The FEP, to 

be developed for each major ecosystem under Council jurisdiction, is a mechanism for 

incorporating the Principles, Goals and Policies into the present regulatory structure. The 

objectives of FEPs are to: 

• Provide Council members with a clear description and understanding of the 

fundamental physical, biological, and human/institutional context of ecosystems 

within which fisheries are managed; 

• Direct how that information should be used in the context of FMPs; and 

• Set policies by which management options would be developed and 

implemented. (EPAP Report at 2 (emphasis added).) 

Congress has funded the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Councils to conduct a pilot program on 

implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management. However, nowhere is the Magnuson 

Act's provision requiring FMPs for managed fisheries excused. In fact, all guidance on 

development of fishery ecosystem plans is echoed in the approach that the South Atlantic 

Council is taking: keeping FMPs, creating a new over-arching FEP, and amending FMPs as 

needed to implement the FEP. Only by both implementing an FEP and amending existing FMPs 

to incorporate ecosystem principles and information laid out in the FEP, can ecosystem-based 

fisheries management be achieved while still complying with existing law under the MagnusonStevens Act. 

Wespac, however, seems to be forging ahead on its own and disregarding the advice of the EPAP 

report, which recommended development and implementation of FEPs in addition to FMPs. 

Under the EPAP approach, FMPs should still be used to manage single and multi-species 

fisheries. In the opening of its draft PEIS on whether and how to switch to FEPs, Wespac is very 

clear that it is "developing five place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) to replace the 

existing species-based Fishery Management Plans for fisheries in the Western Pacific region." 

(Draft PEIS at i (emphasis added).) There is nowhere in the draft PEIS an analysis of whether 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes such a switch in management structure, or what the 

3 
structure of the FEPs will be. Finally, there is no mention of how the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements for FMPs of managed species will be met if FMPs have been replaced by FEPs. 

While we have serious concerns about many aspects of existing FMPs, and applaud a move 

towards ecosystem-based management in the Western Pacific, such a shift in management must 

not be done at the expense of existing law. 

Wespac's Hindrance of Public Involvement 

In the draft PEIS, Wespac states that: 

A major function of NEPA is to ensure that Federal agencies undergo a public disclosure 

process when making decisions that may affect the environment. The NEPA process 

fosters public participation by requiring that Federal agencies conduct public scoping 

meetings prior to the development of a Draft EIS as well as make all Draft and Final EISs 

available for public review and comment. (Draft PEIS at 11.) 

Despite their assertion that public involvement is an important part of the NEPA process, 

Wespac has hindered public involvement on several occasions. Wespac held an Ecosystem 

Science and Management Planning Workshop in April 2005, "which was attended by world 

renowned ecosystem scientists as well as high-level government agency officials." (Draft PEIS 

at 19.) Wespac supports its move to FEPs by citing the results of this workshop: "The compiled 

proceedings of that workshop are currently under development, however, there was a general 

consensus amongst workshop attendees that the Council's plan to initiate an incremental shift 

towards ecosystem approaches to fisheries management by implementing place-based FEPs 

related to archipelagic boundaries was appropriate." (Draft PEIS at 19.) Despite Wespac's 

claim of the importance of public input, this workshop was not open to the public. After several 

requests, MCBI was able to have our Chief Scientist, Dr. Lance Morgan, attend the workshop, 

but he was informed in advance that there would be no opportunity for him to speak or 

contribute. The workshop, which Wespac appears to use to legitimize their switch to FEPs, 

could have offered an important opportunity to educate the public about ecosystem-based 

fisheries management, and to receive involvement of cross-disciplinary scientists - which is after 

all one of the main tenants of ecosystem-based management. Instead, Wespac chose to exclude 

the public from this important meeting. 

We have found that the draft PEIS is so vague as to make commenting on it difficult; there is 

nowhere a discussion (other than the discussion of what geographic area they would cover) of 

how the FEPs would be structured, what they would contain, or how they would comply with the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Without knowing more about how the FEPs would 

be carried out, it is difficult to comment on the draft PEIS. In looking at the FEPs for insight into 

how Wespac would implement the preferred alternatives of the draft PEIS, we are not imbued 

with confidence that Wespac will manage the fisheries of the Western Pacific in accordance with 

existing law or true involvement of the public. 

The draft FEPs that were issued a month prior to the draft PEIS (we reiterate that the FEPs are in 

violation of NEPA) were missing key chapters until only a couple days prior to the vote on 

whether to approve them. The draft FEP for the Hawaii Archipelago, for example, was missing 

"Chapter 7 - Integration of Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management in the Mariana 

4 
Archipelago FEP" (Draft FEP for the Hawaii Archipelago at 174), the section on how the 

document complies with Executive Orders 13178 and 13196 (Draft FEP for the Hawaii 

Archipelago at 194), and "Chapter 10 - Draft Regulations for Hawaii Archipelago FEP" (Draft 

FEP for the Hawaii Archipelago at 211). In addition to our own frustration and confusion as to 

when public comment on the FEPs is going to occur or on which version of the FEPs, we hear 

from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands hui and others that the public feels shut out of the 

process. 

Public review and involvement in the NEPA process requires the public to be allowed to be 

involved, and release of an EIS that is clear and comprehensive. The public was explicitly 

prohibited from involvement in the workshop that helped shape the draft PEIS preferred 

alternatives, and the draft PEIS is too vague to permit informed public comment. 

Guidance on Fishery Ecosystem Plans 

We feel that Wespac has also fallen short on its interpretation of ecosystem-based fisheries 

management (EBFM). There are on-going pilot projects to implement ecosystem-based fisheries 

management in the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico Councils. NMFS has refrained from issuing 

guidelines on how to implement EBFM until there is a legislative authority that applies to all 

councils, and until the results of the pilot project are determined. 

The South Atlantic Council, part of this pilot project, has been engaged in a several year process 

to determine how to proceed with implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management and the 

eight principles established by the NMFS Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. The South 

Atlantic Council process has involved numerous meetings and workshops (15 workshops in 2003 

alone), all open to the public, on the general and specific requirements of EBFM. The approach 

the South Atlantic Council has decided to take, and which it is in the process of implementing, is 

to release an FEP which will include comprehensive amendments to all of the FMPs. Deriving 

their authority from the Essential Fish Habitat Final Regulations, the South Atlantic Council is 

developing a comprehensive FEP derived from their comprehensive Habitat Plan. The FEP will 

result in an amendment to each of the FMPs to take into account the ecosystem-based foundation 

and principles expressed in the FEP. 

The transition from single species management to ecosystem management will involve 

incremental steps to better characterize the system and understand the complex 

relationships among humans, harvested fish and prey, all marine life and essential habitat 

and environmental characteristics of the South Atlantic Ecosystem. This effort will 

provide the Council with a foundation from which to attain a more comprehensive 

understanding of habitat and biology of species, fishery information, social and economic 

impacts of management and ecological consequences of conservation and management. 

The Fishery Ecosystem Plan will specify research and monitoring needed to fully address 

ecosystem management. (SAFMC Action Plan for Ecosystem-Based Management.) 

This approach is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which refers only to FMPs and 

makes no reference to FEPs, and with guidance from the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel 

and other groups. 

5 
On the other hand, Wespac's approach is based on one workshop which was closed to the public, 

makes no attempt to abide by the requirements of NEPA or the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and does 

little to achieve the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel principles. While Wespac considers 

alternatives for four aspects ofFEP implementation, there is no discussion of how FEPs will fit 

into the overall fisheries management process, or what the structure of the FEPs will be. The 

failure of the draft PEIS to address the eight Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel principles is 

due in large part to the vagueness of the proposed action. Wespac several times raises the 

inadequacy of existing data, yet promotes gathering even more types of information. The 

inevitable conclusion is that Wespac will be swamped in data that is presented on different scales 

and which neither NMFS nor Wespac will be able to analyze due to lack of resources. 

By barging ahead like a bull in a china shop, Wespac will almost certainly find that its approach 

at EBFM is not identical to the one finally authorized by law and regulations. It is duplicative 

and wasteful for W espac to proceed on its own at this time, rather than waiting to conform to 

future national standards. 

Conclusion 

In summary, Wespac's draft PEIS on the move from FMPs to FEPs violates NEPA, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and guidance on what ecosystem-based fisheries management should be. 

The only way to address these deficiencies is to withdraw both the draft PEIS and the already 

finalized FEPs, and rework the draft PEIS so that it is a legal and useful document. As part of 

this rewrite, the draft PEIS should consider not just what the geographic boundaries ofFEPs 

should be, but whether the proposed action of creating FEPs to replace FMPs is authorized under 

current law or would require a change in law. 

Hannah Gillelan, Esq. 

Director of Policy Research 

6 
Dec-%7-05 02:llPm From- 808 7929581 T-865 P.0O2/OO6 F-411 

United States Department of the Interi r 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room3-122, Box S0088 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 

Jn Reply Refer To: 

PN-06-331 

Mr. William. L. Robinson 

Pacific Islands Regional Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd. 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 

EC 2 7 2005 

Re: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Towards an Ecos stem Approach 

for the Western Pacific Region; From Species-based Fishery Manageme t Plans to Placebased Fishery Ecosystem Plans 

Dear Mr. Robinson: 

The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Programm tic 

Environmental Impact Statement Towards an Ecosystem Approach for the Wes em Pacific 

Region: From Species-based Fishery Management Plans to Place-based Fish Ecosystem Plans 

(DPEIS). The DPEIS was prepared by staff ofthe Western Pacific Regional Fi hery 

Management Council (Council). Based on the preferred alternatives analyzed i this DPEIS, the 

Federal action that would be implemented is the realignment of the existing fis cry regulations 

contained in the Council's five current species-based Fishery Management Pla regulations into 

geographically-based Fishery Ecosystem Plan regulations. The measures being considered 

incJude identification of appropriate boundaries, management unit species, and advisory bodies 

that would result in the reorganization of current species-based fishery regulatitns into 

geographically-based fishery management areas in the Western Pacific Region. 

This letter has been prepared un~er the authority of and in accordance with pro isions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 8~2]. as amended 

(NEPA), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amende (NWRSA.A), and 

other authorities mandating Service concern for environmental values. Based o these 

authorities, we offer the following comments for your consideration. 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

In general, we recognize that a great amount of work has gone into producing ·s DPEIS. Yet, 

despite the lengthy comments previously expressed by the Service and Dep ent of the 

Interior and formal agreemeo.ts between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the 

TAKE PRIDE®i'J:::::-' 

IN_AMERICA~ 
Dec-Z7·05 02: I 1 pm Fr om- 808 7929581 T-865 P.003/006 F-411 

William L. Robinson 2 

Service regarding jurisdictional authorities that were incorporated into the Coral eef Ecosystem 

Fishery Management Plan, many of our substantive concerns regarding the Serv· ce• s exclusive 

authority to manage fisheries within the boundaries of IO National Wildlife Re ges (NWRs) in 

the Central Pacific Ocean remain inadequately addressed and not clearly describ in the 

analyses contained in this DPEIS. 

Management Responsibility for National Wildlife Refuge Resources 

The DPEIS includes a discussion of NMFS as the primary Federal agency resp ible for 

stewardship of the nation's living marine resources and their habitats. We appr ciate NMFS' 

stewardship efforts, but given that the focus of this DPEIS is to establish a geo phic-based 

ecosystem approach, the DPEIS should more fully disclose that the Service also has a legally 

mandated public stewardship responsibility to manage submerged lands and wa ers within 10 

NWRs in the Central Pacific Ocean. U.S. coral reefs., submerged lands, and te 'torial seas 

associated with these NWRs are adrninistered by the Service under the general gulations for 

the National Wildlife Refuge System published 1n1der Title SO, Code of Federal egulations. We 

believe that Congress intends the Service to have primary responsibility for m ging fish and 

wildlife resources within NWRs that are located in Federal waters. The Dep ent of Justice 

Office of Legal Counsel's 2000 legal opinion regarding jurisdiction in the No westem 

Hawaiian Islands substantiates the Service's legal authority to be the primary fe eral agency for 

managing fish and wildlife resources and their habitats within a NWR. We rec mmend that the 

Final PEI$ include a section on bow the Service's existing geographic-based n ral resource 

management approach and legal authorities will be incorporated into the NMF Fishery 

Ecosystem Plans. Section 304 of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation d Management 

Act (MSFCMA) supports this recommendation by mandating that Fishery Man gement Plans be 

consistent with any applicable law, such as the NWRSAA. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

Section 1.2.3; Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Government ... ; pg 4; fi t paragraph; first 

sentence: We recommend that this sentence be changed to read as follows: "Th U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service manages waters and submerged lands within Baker Island N Howland 

Island NWR. Jarvis Island NWR, Kingman Reef NWR., Palmyra Atoll NWR, J hnston Island 

NWR, Rose Atoll NWR, Guam NWR, Midway Atoll NWR and Hawaiian Isl ds NWR and 

provides a comprehensive conservation approach to protect and conserve fish, ildlife and plants 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of present and future generations o Americans." 

Section 1.2.3; Roles and Responsibilities of the Federal Government. .. ; pg. 4 fi t paragraph: We 

recommend that the following sentence be inserted after the first sentence of th s paragraph: 

"Fishing is not allowed in any waters withdrawn as a NWR by the President or Secretary of the 

Interior unless specifically authorized by regulations issued by the Service." It is essential to 

include this sentence in the Final PEIS because NMFS agreed to include this c arifying language 

in the Record of Decision for the Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management lan (CREFMP) 

and in subsequent rules and regulations implementing the CREFMP. In additi n, this exclusive 

regulatory authority of the Service to manage fisheries in NWRs applies to all urrent Fishery 

Management Plans and is particularly imponant to include in this PEI$ becaus the 
Dec-27-05 02:llpm From- 808 7929581 T-865 P.004/006 F-411 

William L. Robinson 

establishment of boundaries for Fishe:ry Ecosystem Plans in the Western Pacific 

proposed Federal action and categorized as regulatory in this document. 

3 

Section 2.1 Issue l: Fishery Ecosystem Plan Boundaries (Regulatory); pg 22; fir t paragraph; last 

sentence: Because of the significance of the role that the 10 NWRs play as existi g Marine 

Protected Areas and NMFS' desire to establish place-based regulations, we reco end that the 

last sentence specifically identify the NWRSAA as a law that will be complied itb in 

implementing the proposed action. Thus, the last sentence will read: "These ac ons will be 

ta.ken in accordance with the MSA, NEPA, ESA, MivfP A. NWRSAA, and other applicable laws 

and statutes." 

Section 3.5.1.2 Protected Species; pg 103; Table 20 Title: Please modify the sec nd sentence to 

read as follows: "Twelve species of migratory seabirds reside at Rose Atoll 

Section 3.5.5.1 Baker Island; pg. 153; Social Environment; Baker Island NWR 

in 1974, not 1936. Also, please correct the fifth sentence to read as follows:" 

boundary, established by the President of the United States, lies 3 nm seaward the shoreline 

and this area is managed by USFWS as a no-take marine protected area (MP A). • In addition, 

please delete the last sentence because the CouncWs SO-fathom no-take MPA is within the 

Refuge and does not provide any additional protection. Inclusion of the senten e confuses the 

public as to the extent o{the no-take MPA at Baker Island NWR. 

Section 3.5.5.2 Howland Island; pg. 155; Social Environment; Howland Island }'1W!l was 

established in 1974, not 1976. Also. please correct the seventh sentence to rea~ as follows: ('The 

Refuge boundary, established by the President of the United States, lies 3 nm s award of the 

shoreline and this area is managed by USFWS as a no-take MP A." In addition, please delete the 

last sentence because the Council's SO-fathom no-take MPA is within the Refu e and does not 

provide any additional protection. Inclusion of the sentence confuses the publi as to the true 

extent of the no-take MPA at Howland Island NWR. 

Section 3.5.5.3 Jarvis Island; pg. 156-157; Social Environment; Jarvis Island N was 

established in 1974, not 1976. Also, please correct the fourth sentence to read follows: "The 

Refuge boundary, established by the President of the United States, lies 3 nm s award of the 

shoreline and this area is managed by USFWS as a no-take MP A." In addition please delete the 

last sentence because the Council's SO-fathom no-take MPA is within the Refu e and does not 

provide any additional protection. Inclusion of the sentence confuses the publi as to the true 

extent of the no-take MPA at Jarvis Island NWR. 

Section 3.5.5.4 Palmyra Atoll; pg. 158; Social Environment; Please correct the eighth sentence to 

read as follows: ·'The Refuge boundary, established by the Secretary of the Int rior in 2001, 

coincides with the, 12-nm territorial seas boundary and this area is managed by USFWS as a nocommercial-take MPA." Also, please delete the last sentence because the Cou cil's SO-fathom 

low-use MP A is within the Refuge and does not provide any additional protec · on. Inclusion of 

the sentence confuses the public as to the ex.tent of the no-take MP A at Palm Atoll NWR. 
Dec-27-05 O2:llpm From- 808 7929581 T-865 P.005/006 F-411 

William L. Robinson 4 

Section 3.S.5.5 Kingman Reef; pg. 159: This section does not include a .. Social nvironment" 

sub-section and fails to identify the existence of Kingman Reef NWR to the publ c. To correct 

this omission, please add the following sentences: "Since 2001, Kingman Reef s been a 

National Wildlife Refuge managed by USFWS. The Refuge boundary, establish~d by the 

Secretary of the Interior, coincides with the 12-nm territorial seas boundary and his area is 

managed by USFWS as a no-take MPA." Also, please delete the last sentence b cause the 

Council's 50-fathom no-take MPA is within the Refuge and does not provide an additional 

protection. Inclusion of the sentence confuses the public as to the true extent of he no-take 

MP A at Kingman ReefNWR. 

Section 3.5.5.6 Johnston Atoll; pg 161; Social Environment; pg 161: Please co ct the sixth 

sentence to read as follows: "Today, the U.S. Air Force continues to maintain a ministrative 

jurisdiction and control over the 3-nm Naval Defensive Sea around Johnston At 11 and access to 

this area is prohibited. Also, the USFWS continues to manage Johnston Atoll as a National 

Wildlife Refuge. Note: The USFWS rescinded its recreational fishing regulatio at Johnston 

Island NWR because there are no longer any military personnel stationed on Jo nston Island." 

Chapter 5 Environmental Management Issues; Section 5.7 Possible Conflicts B tween the 

Alternatives and Other Plans; pg 219: The DPEIS fails to provide a full and obj ctive discussion 

of significant impacts of the proposed action on the Senrice's ability to manage 

Commercial :fishing within the Pacific NWRs is an activity that is not allowed the Service. If 

the DPEIS is implemented as currently written, the Service's ability to manage larine resources 

within NWR ecosysrems will be seriously compromised because activities that ould be 

permitted under the Final PEIS would violate the Service's cUITent managemen regimes at these 

NWRs. We are very concerned that the proposed type of overJappjng manage ent regime 

alluded to in the DPEIS appears to have a strong potential to result in unneces duplication of 

effort, bureaucracy, and expenditures. and be a source of confusion both to the ervice and 

NMFS, as well as to the public. In our view, Council and NMFS pursuit of ap lying the 

proposed DPEIS place-based management regime within NWRs has been a mi direction of 

effort since the NWRSAA requires that the Service maintain sole and exclusiv management 

authority over NWRs. To avoid unnecessary conflicts, we recommend that .fS produce a 

Final PEIS that includes MPAs that are compatible with and reflective of the anagement 

regime currently being implemented by the Service within these Pacific 

SUMMARY COMMENTS 

Deficiencies in the DPEIS preclude its use as a basis for a meaningful analysis of anticipated 

impacts to fish and wildlife resources and NWR management under the newly roposed fishery 

regulatory regime. The DPEIS does not fully analyze the proposed alternative for their 

compatibility with the primary purposes for which the relevant NWRs were es ablished. Finally, 

the DPEIS proposes activities that are incompatible with the National Wildlife Refuge Sys~em 

requirements found at 50 CFR 29. Because of this, it appears that the propose Fishery 

Ecosystem Plans would also violate the intent of Section 304 of the MSFCM that fishery plans 

and their amendments be developed and implernented in compliance with all plicable law. 

Therefore, we recommend that the Final PEIS include a thorough and complet analysis of the 

affects of the proposed Federal action on existing NWRs, If these deficiencie are not corrected 
Dec-27-05 02:llpm Fram808 7929581 T-865 P.006/006 F-411 

Witliam L. Robinson 

in the Final PEIS, the Service will refer the matter to the Council of Bnvironmen l Quality, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 1504. 

s 

Although we agree with the general concept of using an ecosystem approach to :ianaging the 

nation's ocean resources, we, nevertheless, desire to continue to pursue resolutiof of these 

significant marine conservation issues with your agency. We hope that these colj!llllents will 

enable NMFS to more fully address our basic concerns. We look forward to co 1tinuing to work 

with NMFS and Council toward development of a Final PEIS that is consistent 'Ih all 

applicable laws and that represents an adequate basis for decision-makers. 

If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact either myself at (808) 792-9400 

or Hawaii and Pacific Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex Project Leade , Barry Stieglitz, 

at (808) 792-9540. 

cc: CEQ, Washington DC 

FWS, Washington DC 

FWS, Region 1, Portland Oregon 

FWS, Refuges, Honolulu, Hawaii 

Sincerely, 

?"--h~Ct 

Patrick Leonard 

Field Supervisor 

USEP A - Region IX, San Francisco, California 

USBPA - Region IX, Honolulu, Hawaii 

NMFS, Strategic Planning Office, Silver Springs, Maryland 

NOS-NWHICRER, Honolulu, Hawaii 

DLNR-DAR, Honolulu, Hawaii 

WPRFMC, Honolulu, Hawaii 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Attention: William L. Robinson 

Pacific Islands Region 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Ste. 1101 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

Dear Mr. Robinson: 

DEC 2 2 2005 

OFFICE OF 

ENFORCEMENT AND 

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 

In accordance with our responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

reviewed the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) "Towards an 

Ecosystem Approach for the Western Pacific Region: From Species-based Fishery Management 

Plans to Place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans." 

The EPA fully supports taking an ecosystem approach to fisheries management and 

commends NMFS for preparation of this initial analysis. EPA understands that this 

Programmatic EIS is the first step towards developing and implementing the appropriate 

institutional framework and foundation for future fisheries management under an ecosystem 

approach (i.e., Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEPs)). We support the ecosystem approach presented 

in the DPEIS. The preferred FEP Boundary alternative (Issue 1: Fishery Ecosystem Boundaries: 

Alternative IC) that encloses each of the region's four archipelagic areas and a single pelagic 

FEP appears to be an appropriate approach for delineating FEP boundaries. Clearly, such an 

approach will provide significant positive long term impacts to the fisheries. 

EPA's overall rating of the DPEIS is LO-Lack of Objection to the proposed action. 

Although we rated the document LO, EPA requests that the following issues be clarified and 

addressed in the DPEIS. Specifically, the general issues are as follows: 

1.) Issue 2: List Of Management Unit Species (MUS) discusses the various options for MUS 1 

lists that will be managed under an ecosystem approach. The preferred option for Issue 2, 

Alternative 2B, chosen by NMFS/Council is to define and manage only the current MUS 1 

listed fisheries believed to be present within each developed Fishery Ecosystem Plan 

boundary. The DPEIS states that "while principles of ecosystem approach to fisheries 

management direct managers to consider predator/prey relationships for each target species, 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
it does not require managers to manage every species under an ecosystem approach." While 

EPA understands it would be difficult to monitor and manage all species under an 

ecosystem approach, an option that takes into account other species occupying the same 

niche as fisheries and that interact with fisheries may be more appropriate from an 

ecosystem management standpoint. EPA believes that Alternative 2C, which defines MUS 

as those current fisheries plus incidentally caught and associated species that are known to 

occur within each FEP boundary is more in line with a ecosystem approach. Accordingly, 

EPA suggests that the FPEIS provide a more in depth comparison of Alternatives 2C to 

Alternative 2B for Issue 2. 

2.) We support the provisions that Alternative 2B for Issue 2 provides for protection of target 

and non-target stocks as well as protected species. While the DPEIS discusses how the 

removal of species from the MUS list not physically present in the FEP would be part of an 

adaptive management approach, it does not discuss how species could be added to the MUS 

list if evidence becomes available that they are present in the FEP boundary. With this in 

mind, EPA suggests that the FPEIS discuss the adaptive management measures that will be 

taken to ensure that all ecosystem important species will be included in the FEP' s MUS list 

and the measures that will be taken to include species that prove important to managing 

species within each FEP. 

3.) There is no discussion under Issue 2, List of MUS, about how the species managed under the 

restructured MUS lists will be monitored. Under the existing Fishery Management Plans, 

stock assessments of managed fisheries are to be conducted on an annual basis. Alternative 

2 does not specify how the species to be managed will be assessed and how the frequency of 

the assessments may or may not impact the approach to ecosystem management. In addition 

to the question on monitoring, the FPEIS should address how the NMFS/Council will 

provide for funds to ensure that species managed under the proposed FEPs will be 

adequately monitored and that the adaptive management approach is working to a sufficient 

degree to protect managed species. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review this DPEIS. We also look forward to reviewing 

future documents related to this project. The staff contact for this review is Matthew Harrington 

and he can be reached at (202) 564-7148. 

22'?;?~ 

Anne Norton Miller 

Director 

Office of Federal Activities 

cc: Steve Kokk:inakis; NOAA Office of Strategic Planning 

John Hansel; NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries 
 

This page left blank intentionally.