Cover

The mystery of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) seems to escape the good people who work for Wespac.

Wespac, for those who don’t possess a commercial fishing license, is the group that writes fishing plans for federal waters in the western Pacific. It is formally known as the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, though hardly anyone calls them that.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Wespac’s charge is to develop fishery management plans for U.S. waters around Hawai’i, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas and several far-flung atolls in American possession. Wespac is one of eight regional fishery councils in the U.S. Though its territory, encompassing 1.5 million square miles, is the largest, its fisheries are the smallest in the U.S.

Wespac, like the seven other councils has, in theory, no real power or authority to make decisions or policy. By law, the regional councils are advisory bodies; they can suggest policies, but only federal agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) can make policies. Any plans Wespac approves are merely recommendations to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. However, some believe a tight relationship between Wespac and the office of Sen. Daniel Inouye has allegedly allowed the group’s power to apparently expand over the years.

At a hearing last year, for example, Wespac chairman Roy Morioka introduced the organization as the ‘federal policy-making agency for federal waters’ in the western Pacific. In December 2005, Wespac even claimed in public documents that it sets policy for all ‘offshore waters in the U.S. Pacific Islands’ (which would include federally protected U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuges).

Over the last six years, Wespac has been at war with the idea of fully protecting the NWHI, which stretch 1,200 miles from Kaua’i to Kure. Wespac officials have been waging this war against almost everyone else in Hawai’i, where support of full protection of the area has been overwhelming. Several key leaders–Gov. Linda Lingle and U.S. Rep. Ed Case–and at least one influential organization–the Office of Hawaiian Affairs–have voiced their support of efforts to shut down fishing in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Why would Wespac stand so stridently against the current? The reason, quite possibly, may come down to money. And not a lot of it at that.

Under Kitty M. Simonds, executive director of Wespac, the council’s budget has grown to the point where it receives nearly 25 percent ($5 million) of all federal funds dedicated to federal fishery management councils ($20 million), even though the value of fish caught under Wespac’s management is worth only 2 percent ($68 million) of the entire U.S. total catch ($3.2 billion).

Simonds also proposed an increase of Wespac’s annual spending of about 25 percent throughout the rest of the decade, even though the fisheries under Wespac’s management have been shrinking. Simonds had wanted to double Wespac’s budget, but that idea was shot down last year by NOAA, which instead approved the 25 percent increase. In 2000, Wespac’s annual spending was at $1.5 million; by 2009, it will be $6.1.

As for Simonds, her paycheck has risen in recent years. It now exceeds the salary of the Secretary of Commerce and the head of NOAA, who both run organizations with authority over Wespac. According to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, by 2009 Simonds will be making $220,000, more than the current salary of Vice President Dick Cheney and everyone else in the entire federal bureaucracy except the president.

Simonds’s salary includes, apparently, annual ‘profit-sharing’ bonuses, even though Wespac–a non-profit entity funded entirely by the taxpayer–generates zero profits from its operations.

Simonds declined to comment.

None of the eight fishery management councils in the U.S. pay profit-sharing or other bonuses to executives. ‘I don’t know what profit sharing means,’ says Chris Oliver, executive director of the North Pacific Council Fishery Management Council, based in Anchorage, in a reply to an e-mail. ‘We do not pay bonuses to the executive director or any other employees.’

Simonds’ salary is determined by Wespac members and not the U.S. Department of Commerce, which allocates money to Wespac through annual contracts and special agreements and oversees Wespac’s operations.

Meanwhile, Simonds has steered Wespac on a course that’s in opposition to the federal government. Wespac has been repeatedly rebuffed in its attempts to enact ecologically damaging fishery plans in the fragile Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The council’s lobster fishery was halted by the courts, the White House and the Department of Commerce, after it was revealed that Wespac’s fishers were taking food from the highly endangered–and starving–Hawaiian monk seal. Wespac’s efforts to expand bottomfishing met immutable resistance from higher authorities, as did its plans to open fisheries for coral reef species and precious corals, which were declared illegal as well as dangerous to the ecosystem.

As Wespac’s efforts to enact these fisheries continued to fail, some claim that some of these efforts may have been illegal. The Inspector General of the Commerce Department is investigating whether any crimes have been committed. Two Hawai’i fishing organizations–O’ahu Game Fish Club and the Waianae Boat Fishing Club–petitioned the Department of Commerce to investigate Wespac.

Wespac’s recent history shows that:

n In December 2005, Wespac approved a set of lobster, coral reef fish and precious coral fishing plans–which some believe are illegal–without allowing the public, the state of Hawai’i or NOAA to see the final versions.

n In March 2005, Wespac supported the reopening of lobster fishing after determining that the monk seal would not be harmed by it. Wespac based its decision on its own interpretation of an important monk seal study. But according to the scientist who conducted the study, Wespac’s interpretation was completely false. The scientist, Gwen Goodmanlowe (then at the University of Hawai’i) said her results absolutely did not absolve the lobster fishers of doing harm to the seal.

n In January 2005, Wespac outraged some leaders in the native Hawaiian community by airing radio advertisements falsely stating that conservation measures proposed for a sanctuary at the NWHI would strip away their traditional fishing rights.

Since 2000, Wespac has received several million dollars in grants under the Coral Reef Conservation Act. The money comes to Wespac in annual $500,000-$750,000 chunks from NOAA, often the result of earmarks from Sen. Inouye.

Wespac has been spending portions of these funds to promote fishing methods that can damage fragile coral reef habitats. For example, Wespac spent coral reef conservation funds to sponsor a television program in January 2005 that depicted a recreational fishing trip into monk seal habitat near Nihoa Island in the NWHI. The program showed a fishing vessel veering within only a few feet of contact with a swimming monk seal. It also approached a monk seal haul-out beach. The program didn’t warn viewers that harassing a monk seal is against the law.

Illustration: Ilsa Enomoto

Wespac may have also used coral reef conservation money to misinform the public about its own conservation efforts. In March 2005, it printed 210,000 copies of a brochure that was delivered inside the Sunday Honolulu Advertiser. The brochure, which promoted resource extraction in the NWHI, greatly exaggerated the size of Wespac’s existing proposal to protect the coral reef ecosystem. The brochure claimed that Wespac had proposed to set aside 24 percent of federal waters as a ‘no-take zone.’ In fact, Wespac proposed a no-take zone of just 14 percent of the area.

Wespac has also spent the coral reef funds on such things as studies on parrotfish and on the impacts of alien species on black coral. It has collected acoustic recordings on Hawaiian deep-reef slopes, tracked ulua and tagged reef fish. It has conducted a baseline study of the Hawai’i coral reef ecosystem and habitat and held a science symposium on the northwestern islands.

Yet, it’s not clear why Wespac needed to do these things, given that it operates only a small bottomfish fishery in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and has been denied permission to open other fisheries there.

Moreover, NOAA is expected to boot Wespac fisheries out of the NWHI altogether, once it completes a management plan for its proposed Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary.

Wespac has also apparently spent some of this coral reef conservation money on ‘outreach and education’ material. This material, including the television show and the newspaper brochure described above, appears to be part of a Wespac public relations campaign designed to build public support for more commercial exploitation of the Islands.

This education project has paid for the development of coral reef fishery fact sheets and profiles ($15,000), black coral fact sheets and profiles ($10,000) and the development of a coral reef fishery display ($2,500). The material either advocates more fishing in the islands, or it minimizes, ignores or denies any of the negative environmental impacts that have been shown to result from the fishing.

The material also includes a guide to Wespac’s coral reef fishery regulations, even though these regulations have been rejected by the Secretary of Commerce and have never been implemented.

Wespac’s efforts have also forced volunteers to spend countless hours in defense of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ecosystem and of traditional rights.

In the last five years, more than 112,000 comments in support of the strongest possible protection for the Islands have been submitted to state and federal entities. Vicky Holt Takamine, president of the ‘Ilio’ulaokalani Coalition of respected cultural practitioners, says her organization is seeking maximum protection for the Islands and full recognition of native Hawaiian rights and traditional practices.

‘When we put out the call, our communities respond by showing up at hearing after hearing,’ she says. ‘It takes a great deal of time and effort, but we work hard to arrive at a coordinated and unified approach.’

Over the years, Wespac council members have been convicted several times of violating the very rules that Wespac writes.

Sean Martin, a member of the Wespac council since 2003, makes his living as a commercial fishermen. He also co-owns a company that manages vessels, an ice factory and Pacific Ocean Producers, the largest ship supply company in the islands. He has also spearheaded a battle to ease regulations designed to protect endangered species that come in contact with fishing gear. As a member of Wespac, he has the opportunity to rewrite the rules that govern his business. And sometimes, his business apparently violates those very rules, according to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

Six times in the last 15 years, Martin or his business partner James Cook, a former Wespac chairman, have been cited and fined for commercial fishing violations in waters off Hawai’i. The most recent was settled in February 2004, eight months after Martin came on the council.

A longline boat owned by Vessel Management Associates, a company that owns and manages vessels, was caught fishing in closed waters off the main Hawaiian Islands in February 2003. Cook and Martin agreed to settle the case for $7,000. Cook and Martin also agreed to pay another $1,000 civil penalty from a previous case. That fine had been suspended if they committed no further violations. But with this new February 2003 violation, NOAA’s Office of General Counsel withdrew the suspension and required payment, documents show.

While some may wonder whether or not Wespac is a rogue organization using federal funds to further the exploitation of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, questions should also be raised about the integrity of overall U.S. ocean policy.

Over the last few years, two major studies of U.S. ocean policies have sought changes to correct numerous defects. And yet, Congress has not enacted any of their recommendations.

If Wespac is allowed to continue to behave as it has, there’s nothing to prevent other regional councils–which have their own failed fisheries to worry about–from following its example. The health of all oceans under U.S. jurisdiction may be at greater risk than the authors of either of the two studies ever contemplated.

Paul Koberstein is the editor and publisher of Cascadia Times ([www.times.org]). A recent issue of Cascadia Times explored in detail Wespac’s attempts to expand fishing in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Illustration: Ilsa Enomoto