The Interior Department on Friday targeted the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument as one of the first monuments to be reviewed by the Trump administration in an effort to reduce government overreach.

The news sparked the ire of those who supported Papahanaumokuakea’s designation in 2006 and expansion last year into the largest protected area in the world.

“I don’t like it at all,” said Narrissa Spies, a University of Hawaii-Manoa Ph.D. student who is studying corals. “At a time when the oceans need more protection, we’re going the wrong way.”

In an announcement Friday the Interior Department unveiled what it described as a first-ever formal comment period allowing the public to weigh in on monument designations under the Antiquities Act.

Comments may be submitted online after May 12 for a 60-day period.

Papahanaumokuakea is on a list of 22 mainland national monuments and five marine national monuments, including four in the Pacific Ocean covering more than 200 million acres of water.

The other three Pacific marine monuments under review are Rose Atoll in American Samoa, Marianas Trench near the Northern Mariana Islands, and Pacific Remote Islands, which encompasses Howland, Baker and Jarvis islands, Johnston, Wake and Palmyra atolls and Kingman Reef.

In a news release, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said the comment period will “finally give voice to communities and states when it comes to Antiquities Act monument designations.” He added that there is no predetermined outcome on any monument.

Under President Donald Trump’s executive order, Zinke must ensure that each monument reflects the requirements and original objectives of the Antiquities Act, including a provision that the protected areas not exceed “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

Zinke also must consider whether there are enough federal resources to properly manage the designated areas. Additionally, he must weigh, among other things, the concerns of affected state, tribal and local governments, including economic issues.

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, the Honolulu- based agency that advises the federal government on policies that affect fishing, has been urging Trump to reverse restrictions on commercial fishing within the monument since it was expanded to four times its size by former President Barack Obama in December.

Restrictions on fishing in the vast monument that surrounds the Northwest Hawaiian Islands adversely and unnecessarily affects the Hawaii fishing fleet, the council contends.

“It’s a mind-blowing thing for a nation to shut off 600,000 square nautical miles in the U.S. (Exclusive Economic Zone) to its fishermen,” said Edwin Ebisui, chairman of the council.

But others argue that WesPac, as the council is known, is overplaying the impact.

Robert Richmond, director of UH’s Kewalo Marine Laboratory, noted that the Hawaii fleet has met its international fishing quotas early again this year, an indication that Hawaii’s fishermen are doing well despite having no access to monument waters.

Richmond said Trump’s review is unnecessary because the expanded Papahanaumokuakea sanctuary was properly vetted with support from both scientists and the Native Hawaiian community. He said the the monument is “biologically, historically and culturally well founded.”

He said the planet needs more protected marine areas, not fewer. Studies of marine life sustainability indicate that 30 percent of the world’s oceans should be protected to allow fish stocks to replenish themselves, he said, but only 2 to 3 percent of the oceans is protected.

Kekuewa Kikiloi, chairman of the Papahanaumokuakea Native Hawaiian Cultural Working Group, said he is disappointed by the administration’s action.

“We already did a thorough process,” Kikiloi said. “It’s pointless to conduct another review randomly. I’m confident that we did everything required and demonstrated that Papahanaumokuakea is worth that level of protection.”

He also pointed out that the monument is a World Heritage site. “If that doesn’t deserve the level of protections, I don’t know what does,” he said.

Kikiloi noted that there’s a question over whether a president actually can revoke a national monument. While presidents apparently can modify a monument designation, the federal act created in 1906 doesn’t address whether a president can kill it entirely, according to research published in 2000 by the Congressional Research Service. Revoking a designation could require approval from Congress.

Kikiloi said that if Trump tries to eliminate Papaha- naumokuakea, he would expect it to be overturned in the courts.

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz earlier said the exercise by the Trump administration is a waste of federal resources because its expansion saw widespread support from the public and from Hawaii’s political leaders.

Contacted Friday, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs issued this statement:

“OHA stands behind the countless Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practitioners, navigators, scientists, conservationists and others who called for the 2006 creation and the 2016 expansion of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, and urged OHA to join them in supporting the protection of this aina akua (god’s country).

“Papahanaumokuakea is a unique contiguous cultural seascape that holds tremendous historic, cultural and scientific value for Native Hawaiians and all Americans,” OHA said. “We believe that the current size and structure of this monument, and OHA’s place as a co-trustee for the area, should be maintained.”