FlowerGardensReef_DataandPolitics_Hickerson_Emma_SydneyAustralia_30April2024_Reel4203.mp3

Emma Hickerson [00:00:00] In 2007, there was a recommendation presented by the Sanctuary Advisory Council for a 281 square mile expansion.

Emma Hickerson [00:00:15] When we published our DEIS [Draft Environmental Impact Statement] in 2016 (another lengthy road), we identified a preferred alternative, which was the staff's preferred alternative, which was about 380 square miles.

Emma Hickerson [00:00:35] This was basically the 2007 recommendation by the Sanctuary Advisory Council [SAC], but we took into account new information that we gained since 2007, because we'd done a lot more exploration and characterization.

Emma Hickerson [00:00:50] But we aligned the same criteria that was used by the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and we also aligned regulatory regimes and also looked at the boundaries to simplify ease of enforcement. We took into account oil and gas infrastructure that was in place at the time.

Emma Hickerson [00:01:10] And so, that was our 380 square mile expansion proposal, which was 15 reefs and banks.

Emma Hickerson [00:01:18] The final 2021 expansion action actually decreased the expansion, even from the SAC's own 2007 recommendation.

Emma Hickerson [00:01:29] It's, in my opinion, it was highly influenced by primarily oil and gas, and from politics.

Emma Hickerson [00:01:38] A lot of this was driven, I think, by a man named Clint Moore, who embedded himself in the process from an early point. He first came onto the Council in 2005, but in May 2015, he was voted in as the chair of the Sanctuary Advisory Council. And then, he also became the chair of the Boundary Expansion Working Group.

Emma Hickerson [00:02:05] Clint Moore was the owner of a hydrocarbon oil and gas company called Gulf Slope Energy, and for some reason he was, he ended up, on the SAC longer than anybody else than I'm aware of. And our superintendent, G.P. Schmahl, was directed by Sanctuary leadership from headquarters to reappoint him on to the SAC on multiple occasions.

Emma Hickerson [00:02:32] So, that's where I think that the politics came in. With his ownership of an oil and gas company, I believe he had a clear conflict of interest.

Emma Hickerson [00:02:42] I was in meetings in the Boundary Expansion Working Group when he was literally hand-drawing boundaries that were ultimately adopted as official Sanctuary boundaries. He carved out and excluded areas that he pointedly said in meetings were locations where he was planning on drilling, to the extent that he excluded an entire ridge, or bank, to avoid a lease block he had plans on drilling on. That was Bryant Bank. Bryant Bank did not end up in the Sanctuary.

Emma Hickerson [00:03:16] In meetings when we were discussing drawing boundaries, he directed us to turn the biological layers off because they were not needed in the discussions.

Emma Hickerson [00:03:31] The resulting expansion action had virtually no impact on the oil and gas activities, as the boundaries followed closely the no-activity zones, which were drawn and based on decades-old data from the 1980s. And the boundaries ended up being non-continuous. There were banks that had sort of little peanut areas drawn off as boundaries - very hard to enforce, very complicated.

Emma Hickerson [00:03:59] I do recognize that the finalization of the expansion was undertaken during the Trump administration. So, we are probably very, very fortunate that it actually got over the line. And we should feel grateful for an expansion of any kind during that time period.

Emma Hickerson [00:04:15] But for me, personally, because I worked on the collection of the scientific data and guiding the rigorous process for over 20 years, and, you know, to have the biological layers turned off in a meeting because they weren't important in the discussion for protection of these areas, was like a gut punch.

Emma Hickerson [00:04:36] But so I am grateful that there was an expansion that was successful. But for me, quite disappointing.

Speaker [00:04:43] But the data and the science that was collected, it was disregarded in that, you know, in that process to some point. But it's still incredibly valid and important, and I hope it will be considered and used for further expansion efforts in the future.