Today is the deadline for public comments on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for creation of the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

The sanctuary’s purpose is to provide comprehensive and coordinated management of the marine areas within the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument to protect nationally significant biological, cultural and historical resources through a sanctuary designation­ — which is why we are advocating for this important goal.

At issue, however, is the fact that none of the proposed alternative boundaries in the draft EIS includes a boundary that encompasses all of Middle Bank, a large underwater volcano between Kauai and Nihoa islands that provides habitat for a multitude of marine species, including the endangered monk seal and several species of whales.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that the final EIS include all reasonable alternatives that are technically and economically practical or feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposed action or provide a detailed explanation of why an alternative is inconsistent with the stated purpose and need of sanctuary designation and the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA).

In its letter to the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) on Jan. 28, 2022, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council (RAC) recommended that the final EIS include a sanctuary boundary alternative that covers “some larger portion of Middle Bank, that is, incorporate an area that is presently outside of the eastern PMNM boundary.”

But the draft EIS does not include a boundary alternative that includes a larger portion of Middle Bank, nor does it provide a legally sufficient explanation as to why it was not included. Specifically, the draft EIS states that because of the state of Hawaii’s opposition to expanding toward the main Hawaiian Islands, a boundary alternative that encompasses all of Middle Bank would be inconsistent with the particular purpose and policy of the NMSA, which mandates that ONMS “develop and implement coordinated plans for the protection and management of these areas with appropriate federal agencies, state and local governments, etc.”

We disagree with the elimination of a Middle Bank alternative — and instead, believe that the state’s opposition is inconsistent with guidance provided regarding NEPA regulations.

Specifically, Section 1502.14 of NEPA rules requires the EIS to examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is “reasonable,” rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.

In basing its decision to eliminate a Middle Bank alternative from the draft EIS solely on the state’s opposition, ONMS fails to take into account other important purposes and policies set forth in the NMSA. That includes the purpose and policy “to maintain the natural biological communities in the national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and, where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes.”

Furthermore, any public and private uses of sanctuary resources must be compatible with the primary objective of resource protection.

Such coordinated protection, we believe, requires a comprehensive boundary for Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Sanctuary that encompasses all of Middle Bank — between Kauai and Nihoa islands — which is an important habitat for many marine species, including Hawaii’s endangered monk seal.