Claims of conservation benefits to natural resources by expanding the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM) from 50 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles are without scientific or economic merit.

The PMNM already provides near-absolute protection for nearshore vulnerable habitats, such as coastal coral reef ecosystems, and protected species (monk seals, coastal sharks, sea birds, coral reefs and fish) and the paths through which they travel. Ocean depths outside of the current PMNM are more than 14,000 feet deep.

Expanding the closure will not provide additional conservation benefits beyond those already provided through U.S. law to the fish, birds, turtles and marine mammals that occur in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters beyond 50 miles, as they are highly mobile and range well beyond the U.S. EEZ.

Resources are already protected in the U.S. waters outside of the PMNM through layers of U.S. laws and agencies that implement them through regulations and enforcement resources.

This call for expansion is surprising, given no resource conservation issues has been raised that are not already being addressed through existing laws and management regimes.

The Hawaii longline fishery is a pelagic fishery that has no impacts to the bottom of the sea, is considered by the international community to be among the best managed fisheries in the world, and is the only current activity affected by the proposed expansion. Every fish harvested in this fishery can be accounted for. Limited entry, 100 percent satellite tracking by the U.S. Coast Guard and federal on-board observers are just a few examples of the many comprehensive regulations established decades ago and continue to guide the fishery.

Taking away the remaining U.S. waters from our clean local fisheries will only result in:

>> Reduced food security, as increased foreign imports harvested from less-regulated and less-sustainable foreign fisheries will fill the void.

>> Lower-quality fish, as imports are shipped in from around world and our local boats must travel farther to fish and return to port.

>> Increased risk of foreign fishing in our Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) waters, as our “local” eyes on the water will not be there to help monitor and report illegal foreign fishing.

>> Less protection for sensitive species (turtles, birds, marine mammals, sharks) as less-regulated and environmentally unfriendly foreign vessels will increase their efforts to fill the void created by the reduced domestic fleet.

Given the lack of benefits and overwhelming list of negative impacts resulting from the expanded closure, why is President Barack Obama being asked to take away our locally produced food supply? Is it to provide the environmental community and Obama administration a legacy? The Pacific island people are getting tired of being used by outgoing presidents to leave environmental legacies: Bill Clinton’s 2004 NWHI Reserve; George W. Bush’s 2009 Marianas Trench, Pacific Remote Islands, Rose Atoll, and 2006 Papahanaumokuaukea Marine National Monuments; Obama’s Pacific Remote Islands MNM expansion in 2014; and now this proposed expansion of the PMNM.

How many legacies will be enough? The past 10 years have been a struggle as almost 30 percent of our U.S. waters was closed to U.S. fishermen in order to give presidents another feather in their caps. This new closure will close up to 70 percent of EEZ waters around Hawaii to fishing and seafood production — totally in contrast with the intent of establishment of the EEZ — which was to ensure that the benefits from the exclusive economic zone resources would flow to U.S. citizens and businesses.

Ten years from now looking back, will this be another empty monument providing no conservation or financial benefits to us or the nation while leaving our local residents once again on the outside looking in?