Good news for fish: Like many species, this Yellow Tang in the Mariana Archipelago now has a better chance of thriving. (Robert Schroeder/Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center/NOAA)
Bush orders new protections for Pacific marine seascapes
Together with earlier moves, 355,000 square miles of islands, reefs, and atolls now have new safeguards.
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff Writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ January 6, 2009 edition
Reporter Pete Spotts talks about some of the behind-the-scenes problems that could arise over new US government protected areas of the Pacific Ocean.
Reporter Pete Spotts
A century after Teddy Roosevelt started preserving landmarks and landscapes as national monuments, President Bush has swept nearly 200,000 square miles of seascapes into three new national marine monuments around US Pacific territories.
The much-anticipated action this week follows a similar move two years ago along the northwest Hawaiian islands. Taken together, the two efforts extend tough environmental safeguards to 355,000 square miles of islands, reefs, atolls, and their surrounding waters. Those included in the latest announcement represent some of the most remote, pristine reef systems in the world.
The response from several environmental groups, long critical of the administration on a range of other issues, has been swift and effusive.
“The president has given the Earth a Texas-size gift,” says Diane Regas, who heads the oceans program for the Environmental Defense Fund in New York. Tuesday’s action “opens a new era in ocean protection.”
Others say they see the move as elevating marine conservation to a level of prominence long dominated by efforts to preserve land-based ecosystems.
The areas receiving the monument designation include:
• Rose Atoll, a ring of pink-hued coral near American Samoa.
• The Marianas Marine National Monument, which encompasses the three northernmost islands in the northern Marianas chain, as well as the entire length and breadth of the Mariana Trench – the deepest rift of any on the ocean floor.
• The Pacific Remote Islands National Monument, an array of seven remote islands and atolls in the central Pacific.
The designations prohibit commercial fishing within monument boundaries. Sport fishing, scientific research, and similar activities would require case-by-case permits showing, among other things, that the activities can be conducted sustainably.
The boundaries extend seaward to 50 miles, rather than the full 200 miles representing the country’s exclusive economic zone. Marine scientists specializing in corals, fish, and seabirds strongly favored extending protections beyond three miles. But there was far less agreement on the added value of extending protections beyond 50 miles, says James Connaughton, chairman of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality.
It’s similar to the boundaries around the northwest Hawaiian islands, now known as the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. The line could shift as researchers learn more about the ecosystems involved, Mr. Connaughton suggests.
Another apparent oddity: Protections for the Mariana Trench extend only to the trench itself, not the waters above it. Connaughton notes that scientists were most interested in the geology of the trench and its surroundings, including undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents, and the communities of unusual forms of life they support. The waters above the trench “weren’t relevant to the resources we wanted to protect,” he says.
The tight restrictions on sport fishing rankle some. “There is no scientific basis for prohibiting recreational angling in these areas,” says Mat Dunn of the National Marine Manufacturers Association in Washington, though he acknowledges that these ecosystems may be special.
Despite the enthusiastic response to Mr. Bush’s designations, analysts point to several challenges in managing the new monuments – a task that will fall to the Obama administration. Among them: interagency squabbles and the money needed to monitor activities in the remote monuments and enforce regulations.
Still, these don’t dampen the enthusiasm for Bush’s designations. “We see this as an outstanding act of presidential leadership,” says William Chandler of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Bellevue, Wash.
( More stories )
Comments
2. brian | 01.06.09
personally i think its a good thing that the president has turned his attentions to preservation. we only have one chance on this planet so we should make it last!
3. oneHigginsD@hotmail.com | 01.06.09
WHAT IS BUSH UP TO NOW? - Having never been particularly interested in the environment; I really doubt Bush’s intention is environmental protection. Laying claim to control over hundreds of thousands of square miles of the Pacific surrounding islands and atolls that have been previously claimed as part of the American Empire must have some other significance. The National Monuments Act is a way that the President can; with a stroke of his pen, and without congressional review, put lands (and now it would seem the oceans of the World) under U.S. Government control. To what end - I shudder to think.
5. Finally? Now? | 01.06.09
So Mister president. This is a very sweeping type of enviromental reform that is unlike you. I am confused. Perhaps a year ago when your ratings start to get as low as they have gotten you should have tried something along these lines. I mean, why all of the sudden do you care? Your like the father who was never there for America the child, and now your about to come home from a long eight years of work and all of the sudden you want to be a caring and loving father type? This is truly confusing, I almost question if you didn’t do it just because your trying to find ways to shore up any money that might be loose just to make the financial transition to the new president that much more difficult to be fiscally responsible for. I’m sure the fish thank you. I know I’m pleased for this one act however, too little too late, you should have started your campaign with ideas such as this
6. dennis | 01.06.09
Someone probably told him Spongebob lives there. I bet he loves Spongebob. Regardless of how he made this executive decision, it’s a good thing–I think.
Can’t help suspecting there’s some secret, anti-environment trick he’s worked into the deal, sabotaging another, better law or something. Which probably illustrates a basic fact: his legacy remains pretty much what it is, despite these last-gasp attempts to look like he has a clue. **** always be remembered as a failure and worse.
7. Robert Therrien | 01.06.09
I will island sit to report violators. Just keep paying me what I get now from the government and give me a place to call home to do the job from, and the tools to do the job.
9. King High | 01.06.09
Bush is protecting the Saudi’s oil interests by blocking our own natural resources from us. Remember, they pay him more then we do.
10. Islandernative | 01.06.09
I’m all for the environment and all but some of the people who are living there make a living by fishing. I wonder what will happen to them???????
11. Texas Veteran | 01.06.09
Actually, Bush has always supported preserving the environment as he is an avid outdoorsman. Look at his record in Texas, though you need to look no further than this article to see he’s been doing it since 2002. He has increased funding to alternative energies more than any president in the past. Most of the things he has done has gone largely unnoticed and unthanked because a lot of hateful people out there are more likely to spit at him than thanking him, not for valid reasons, but just because SNL and CNN, or their political party, has told them to think that way. See robert byrne’s post for an example.
I was not an Obama supporter, but if he performs well, I am adult enough to compliment and support him. There is too much blind hate in this world and not enough maturity.
Stop the hate.
12. JSK | 01.06.09
This was about the easiest thing in the world (or at least U.S. ) for Bush to do. My guess is that none of his or V.P. Cheaney’s friends had any plans to drill for oil or commericially develop this land. As a result, he got something (a little good press) for nothing (as he doesn’t have to make this work or have much at all to do with figuring out what the next steps are and how much this will cost). I am not saying it was bad for him to do this, but ask yourself this… “What would have been the impact if he would have done nothing” and my guess is that very little bad would have come to these areas. Quite the magnanimous non-gesture by G.W. !
13. Excited | 01.06.09
How fantastic! Hopefully oneHigginsD is wrong, and all cynicism can be put aside. If this motion has been passed with the correct intention it is truly uplifting.
14. brian liddle | 01.06.09
This is very odd considering Clinton did very similiar measures in his last months in office, only to have Bush immediately repeal them in his first 100 days of office.
Protection from over-fishing is good. But that’s just one part of the quagmire in our oceans. Drilling, dumping, and pollution from run off waters (fertilizers from agriculture, toxic wastes, etc) is something even more important to protect from.
For what it’s worth, at least there’s something good coming from this broken administration; and this time we won’t have a close minded oil-baron erasing the good will from the previous administration.
15. Bill | 01.06.09
Bush doing this sounds fishy. Bush is an oil man, these areas must have some source of free energy that would put a stop to oil.
16. minor fiat | 01.07.09
maybe this the good side of bush’s studious legalism (that otherwise leads to allowing things like guantanamo). but why didn’t clinton think of this sometime; his last minute gestures weren’t near as grand as this. al gore sat in dick cheney’s seat for the same amount of time and acheived nothing memorable. those guys blew their chance, just in a different way than bush did. maybe the real powers that be are never faces on TV. hmmmmmmm…..
17. Papawhale | 01.07.09
This has got to be about the USA controlling these areas for the Military Industrial Complex–I am not paranoid, just realistic. Why would George all of a sudden change character so drastically? I know the guy is a bundle of contradictions due to his Mama and Daddy’s psychotic upbringing, but he always had ulterior motives and this cannot just be an effort to polish his dark legacy. Follow the money.
18. keithwo | 01.11.09
No need to be cynical about Bush’s motive here.Contrary to most of his philosophy, for some reason he happens to be a big fan of preserving marine habitat especially in areas with no oil.He has been influenced by Jacque Costeau’s son in this area.
These areas are very remote and uninhabited and most of them are already protected as national wildlife refuges and this is increased protection. They are not an addition to the empire because most of these islands have been under U.S. sovereignty since the mid 1800s due to the Guano Act. And the rest are a part of American Samoa(an 1898 imperial acquisition) and the Northern Mariana Islands.
I don’t know why the sports fishing industry is so rankled because most of these islands are very,very remote and a thousand or more miles from Honolulu or any other port thy might depart from.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Michele | 01.06.09
In an oped published in today’s Washington Post, Vikki Spruill put forward the key steps President-elect Barack Obama can make to begin building his blue legacy. Spruill, president and CEO of Ocean Conservancy, makes the case that at 71% of the earth’s surface and creating much of the air we breathe and food we eat, the oceans need and deserve strong protection. The proposed steps include:
Make oceans a priority when discussing climate change. The real impacts of climate change can be seen today in the world’s oceans from bleaching coral to rising seas. When decisions are to be made on fighting climate change, the oceans must be taken into consideration.
Focus on the Arctic. The most severe impacts of climate change can be seen in the Arctic. Melting sea ice and costal communities and villages falling into the sea are just a few examples. Oil and gas leases that have been marked for sale should be put on hold until a thorough scientific assessment of their impacts can be completed.
Bring Order to the Ocean. From major shipping lanes to fishing waters and recreational use, the ocean has any number of uses. A comprehensive plan for sustainable ocean use will ensure that we can use the ocean while preserving it for future generations.
Ocean Conservancy promotes healthy and diverse ocean ecosystems and opposes practices that threaten ocean and human life. Through research, education and science-based advocacy, Ocean Conservancy informs, inspires and empowers people to speak and act on behalf of the ocean. Visit us at http://www.oceanconservancy.org.
The piece appears on page A13 of today’s Washington Post and can be viewed here:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/05/AR2009010502346_pf.html)