HONOLULU ADVERTISER, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS WIRE REPORT ON CONTROVERSY
by Stewart:
KAHEA’s complaint asking a Hawaii court to require the state Department of Land and Natural Resources to follow state law concerning permits for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument has made news, as Hawaii’s largest newspaper and a national environmental wire service both published pieces on the matter today.
The news reports come two days after KAHEA filed its suit and a day after KAHEA presented its case to the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources. KAHEA has requested the board refrain from issuing new permits until the agency complies with the law; KAHEA has requested an administrative hearing on the issue.
Last night at the public hearing on the Draft Science Plan for Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, held at the monument office in Hawaii Kai, a troubling consequence of the lack of environmental review was elucidated.
One of the Science Plan authors stated that research activities that have already been permitted are assumed to have gone through a “rigorous” review by management. The problem?
Actually, there could be quite a few from this muddy statement. For one, this statement suggests that research activities that have already been permitted will not be scrutinized- nor, certainly, environmentally assessed- in the future. It sounds like grandfathering-in existing and previous permits, meaning some activities that have been permitted in the past will be continuously assumed to pass muster, despite never actually being environmentally reviewed.
Clearly, grandfathering-in research activities so that they never undergo environmental review creates informational ravines that make cumulative impact analysis impossible. Cumulative impacts, the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action, must be assessed. The managers need to understand the big picture, especially when making seemingly small decisions like permitting.
Secondly, what is this “rigorous” review that the manager mentioned? There has been no environmental assessment on any permits nor the entire permitting system nor the Science Plan, so it clearly was not environmental review. If this rigorous review were undertaken via the prioritization system of the Science Plan, that, too, is problematic.
As I have blogged before, the Science Plan has two tragic flaws: (1) the prioritization scheme that doesn’t actually prioritize permit activities (To prioritize permit activities, it asks, pros and…pros?, leading to 97% of potential research activities to be ranked as “critical” or “high” in importance.) and (2) the lack of environmental review.
But, the environmental assessment did not come with the Science Plan. The managers argue that this is the draft plan, so environmental assessment is not appropriate now. However, they also proclaim the plan to be an evolving document- not problematic necessarily. The evolving nature of the plan is problematic, however, for lack of environmental review because, if it is meant to evolve, when would the managers consider environmental review appropriate? There could always be an argument that it is not truly finalized yet if it’s an “evolving” document.
On the other side, if the monument managers, in fact, conduct an environmental assessment for the Final Science Plan, which is the next step after last night’s public hearing, the decision on permitting prioritization will have been made. And, environmental assessment is legally required to take place prior to decision-making. The whole point of environmental review is for decision-makers to be informed of environmental impacts before they make final decisions.
So, either the Science Plan truly is an evolving document, in which case an environmental review is likely to be put off forever. Or, the Science Plan will be finalized in the next step, the Final Science Plan, which frustrates the point of environmental review taking place before decisions are made.
Confusing? Yes. But it need not be.
KAHEA urges the monument managers to take the straightforward approach by conducting environmental review of the Science Plan, which guides the entire permitting process, prior to finalization of the plan. KAHEA also urges environmental review of all permits- no grandfathering-in. Each proposed permit should be looked at with a fresh eye, through the lens of cumulative impacts, which inherently change over time.
Let’s hope that public comments are indeed incorporated into the Final Science Plan, whenever that may be. Otherwise, the one-sided prioritization system will continue to rank most activities high, leading to excessive access and impact in a fragile, irreplaceable ecosystem.
What can you do? Speak up!
Last public hearing on the Science Plan is in Hilo tomorrow:
Hawai‘i, July 23th, 6-8 p.m.
Mokupapapa Discovery Center,
308 Kamehameha Ave, Suite 203, Hilo, HI, 96720.
All written public comments must be received by the monument managers by or before August 10.
• U.S. Mail:
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Attn: Science Plan Comments, 6600 Kalaniana‘ole Hwy, Suite 300, Honolulu HI, 96825
Complaint Follows Whistleblower Suit By State Worker
“This is not the wild west; there are laws here.”
From Stewart:
The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are known around the globe as one of the world’s last intact, fully functional marine ecosystems. They are home to highly endangered Hawaiian monk seals and the birthplace of more than ninety percent of threatened green sea turtles. Thousands of people participated in the establishment of the islands as the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, which led state and federal regulators to commit to a “do no harm” policy for all human activities allowed in the monument. The monument is intended to be one of the most protected places on earth, with access strictly limited by the do-no-harm policy and applicable state and federal laws.
Despite these protections, the state of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Division of Aquatic Resources have ignored their legal obligations when permitting activities in the reserve. The agencies have brushed aside KAHEA’s repeated objections to the agency’s practices. And when a lawyer working as a policy specialist to the Division of Aquatic Resources dared point out that the division was failing to follow the law the law, the division responded by firing the lawyer.
“This is a place of enormous cultural significance of the Hawaiian people and is intended to be one of the world’s most protected places,” said Marti Townsend, program director and staff attorney for KAHEA. “It is unfortunate that the agencies have forced us to take legal action simply to get the agencies to follow the law, but they left us no choice.”
“This is not the wild west; there are laws here. Laws that are meant to protect our natural resources and the best interests of Hawaii’s people,” said Kumu Hula Vicky Holt-Takamine, KAHEA’s Board President. “DLNR must follow these laws.”
The U.S. Coast Guard removed 32 tons of debris from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands over the Fourth of July weekend. Much thanks to the Coast Guard for ameliorating the health of our oceans! See the Honolulu Advertiser article:
While I am glad that efforts to clean up marine litter are taking place, especially in such an irreplaceable, nationally protected locale, 32 tons is only the tip of the iceberg. The scale of this problem is vast. Marine litter filling our oceans is a global problem affecting all people and nations. Marine litter, of which 80% are plastics, harms marine life, degrades human health, and results in tremendous social, economic, and cultural costs.
The United Nations Environment Programme recognizes this immense ocean dilemma that affects everyone. In April 2009, the UN Environment Programme released a report titled “Marine Litter: A Global Challenge.” Find the report at:
“There is an increasingly urgent need to approach the issue of marine litter through better enforcement of laws and regulations, expanded outreach and educational campaigns, and the employment of strong economic instruments and incentives,” the report says.
The report also notes that the “overall situation is not improving.” Thank you, Coast Guard, for your part. But, we must do our part, too.
What can you do to help reduce marine litter?
Keep streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and storm drains free of trash to prevent washing trash into the ocean and waterways.
Take reusable items- and less trash and throw-away containers- to the beach.
At the beach, be sure to recycle what you can and throw the rest of your trash into trash cans. Do not leave trash or anything else, like plastic toys or containers, at the beach when you leave.
Pick up debris that other people have left; recycle what you can, and throw the rest away in a trash can.
When fishing, take all of your nets, gear, and other materials back onshore to recycle or dispose of in a trash can.
If you smoke, take your butts with you, disposing of them in a trash can.
When boating, stow and secure all trash on the vessel.
On June 15, the third anniversary of the designation of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands as a national monument, a boat that was caught fishing multiple times in a highly protected area of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. The bottom-fishing boat was in a very restricted area of the monument, which extends 50 miles from each of the atolls. This sanctuary is the main home for dozens of highly endangered species including the hawaiian monk seal and green sea turtle. Considering that, and all the press they’ve been getting, one would think they are facing huge charges.
The truth is that they are only facing $130,000 to as little as $1,000 in fines.
Wait, wasn’t a woman just charged $1.9 MILLION for downloading 24 songs illegally off of the internet?
This is a repeat offense case. The fishermen obviously knew where they were becasue of their reaction to the plane. Why doesn’t the government use this case to set an example for others who might have plans to fish in the protected area?
This boat is one of eight Honolulu-based fishing boats permitted to fish in a designated area of the monument. The boat was fishing outside of this area, but it still raises the question: why are these eight boats allowed there at all? What are their restrictions and how do we know they are following them?
Mismanagement needs to be dealt with now, and the correct consequences need to be issued.
Vessel caught illegally fishing in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands:
A Coast Guard search plane on patrol of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument spotted a U.S.-flagged vessel fishing in a special preservation area within the monument on June 15. The Coast Guard said it took video and still photos of the vessel’s crew hauling its lines out of the water and the ship then “abruptly getting underway.”
The aircraft flew out of sight, but when it returned the vessel’s crew had put its lines back in the water and resumed fishing, the Coast Guard said. The incident was reported to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement, which ordered the vessel to cease fishing and return to Honolulu.
The name of the vessel, which reached port on Saturday, was not released because the case is under investigation. The vessel’s owner faces charges of illegally fishing in the national monument and fines from $1,000 to $130,000 for a repeat offense.
Papahanaumokuakea spans nearly 140,000 miles and is the largest marine protected area in the world. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands chain is home to more than 7,000 marine species and is the primary habitat for critically endangered Hawaiian monk seals and green sea turtles.
Some random quotes about the opposition to marine monuments in the Pacific from “Islands Business International” a Fijian on-line newspaper.
The obstacles it cites: first the Navy, then WESPAC.
“Ironically, the most significant opposition to extending the monuments to the full EEZs of the 11 islands had nothing to do with fishing: it came from the US Navy. Even though Bush specified in a memorandum last August that the monument designation “should not limit the department of defense from carrying out its mission” in the Pacific, senior Pentagon officials expressed concern that it could lead to future restrictions on their ability to carry out their tasks. They cited lawsuits restricting the use of active sonar, which injures whales and dolphins, that arose from Bush’s designation of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands monument two years ago. “Without the Navy, I think the monuments would have been a lot bigger,” said one environmentalist.”
But that did not prevent aggressive pushback from Pacific marine conservationists’ old nemesis, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, a federal agency whose executive director, Kitty Simonds, has fought restrictions on fishing for three decades. Wespac is tasked with protecting the interests of fishing companies as well as insuring that these interests don’t reduce fish stocks, but it has presided over the rapid collapse of lobster stocks in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and a steep decline in the fish stocks of the Main Hawaiian Islands. It has even encouraged the issuance of commercial bottom-fishing and lobster-fishing permits in the National Wildlife Refuges of Baker, Howland, Kingman, Jarvis, Johnston and Palmyra, in violation of federal laws, says Jim Maragos, a veteran Fish and Wildlife Service scientist.
In Saipan, where tourism and the garment industry are in free-fall, a pro-monument petition attracted 6000 signatures and the Hotel Association and the Chamber of Commerce endorsed turning the waters around the three northernmost islands—Maug, Asuncion and Uracus—into a marine national monument. “Almost no one is able to enjoy these islands at this time,” wrote Lynn Knight, chairwoman of the association, in a letter to Bush, while monument status would “boost the local economy in promoting ecotourism”.
In contrast, the governor and most of the legislature have voiced their opposition to what they call “The Pew Monument” in language that strikingly resembles Wespac’s.
“The opposition was led by Wespac in every regard,” said Rick Gaffney, a former Wespac council member. “Without Wespac,” added Andrew Salas, a former Marianas legislator, “the opposition would have been minimal. There would have been a bit of grumbling because relations between the Marianas government and the federal government are pretty bad these days, but that’s it, because the overwhelming majority of the people support the monument.”
Wespac is under investigation by the US General Accountability Office and the Inspector General of the Commerce Department for suspected illegal lobbying. In a letter to Bush that received wide publicity in Saipan, Aha Kiole, an organisation essentially created by Wespac to prevent marine reserves from being created in Hawaii, accused the president of having created the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands reserve “without the participation of the Native Hawaiian people,” all of whom feel “anger, trepidation and despair” whenever the monument “is mentioned.” Although more than 100 hearings were held on the issue over six years, the letter asserts that most Hawaiians “did not know that the Pew Foundation was planning to take three-fourths of Hawaiian lands and make it into a monument.” (In fact, the total land area of the ten-islet monument is 13 sq km, while the rest of Hawaii totals 16,635sq km).
The Marianas monument, the letter continued, “will take an integral part of the Marianas culture away from the native people—with no hope of ever getting this part of their heritage back”. Like all federal agencies, Wespac is barred from spending federal funds to lobby the legislative branches of state and federal government. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, and the Inspector General of the Commerce Department are currently both investigating allegations that Wespac lobbied the US Congress and the Hawaii legislature to push its pro-fishing, anti-conservation agenda, notably in creating Aha Kiole.
In Saipan, much of the political elite has ties to Wespac. The governor’s chief of staff, Ray Mafnas, is a senior, unsalaried Wespac official who collects over US$600 a day every time he travels for Wespac. Arnold Palacios, Speaker of the House, is a former member of the Wespac council. He wrote in a letter to Bush that the “loss of control over such a vast area of land and water is an assault on the traditions and culture of the islands.” The representative Speaker Palacios appointed as chairman of the House Federal Relations Committee, Representative Diego Benavente, is a former lieutenant governor who is running for governor. He engineered the approval of two He was president of the Saipan Fishermen’s Association in 2005 when it got a US$150,000 grant from Wespac to rent and equip a store to sell its members’ catch. But this past December, the Marianas Variety reported that the store had closed two months after it opened because of unexpected expenses “like utilities, rent, and salaries.”
Benavente was quoted as saying: “We ran out of money, basically.”
Valentin Taisakan, the mayor of the Northern Islands Municipality, which lies south of the three islands designated as a monument by Bush in January, also wrote to Bush in opposition to the monument. Taisakan, who lives in Saipan, received a US$90,000 Wespac grant to create a fishing base in his remote municipality, but the base never opened, according to Saipan sources. In another letter to Bush opposing the designation, Juan Borja Tudela, the mayor of Saipan, where most of the Marianas’ 65,000 people live, said the monument waters should be left under the control of Wespac, which he called “much more sensitive to the Pacific Islanders’ way of life.” Wespac’s vice-chairman, Manny Duenas, head of a fishermen’s group in Guam, went further in his own letter to Bush. “The taking of our marine resources may be construed as being no different than cattle rustling” and it would “serve as a springboard to ensure the cultural genocide of a people,” he wrote. The result of all this opposition, and of negotiations between James Connaughton, Bush’s environmental adviser, and Gov. Benigno Fitial, was a Marianas marine reserve truncated into three segments, all falling far short of the goals articulated by its proponents.”
If Kitty Simonds (WESPAC Exec.) really believes what she wrote in this Sunday-Editorial, then this woman needs to take a good look in the mirror. She calls out the U.S. military for the harm its presence causes the people of the Pacific, when WESPAC’s own mismanagement over the last 25 years has decimated multiple fisheries here.
Yes, the U.S. military should not be stationing troops and conducting exercises in the fragile and important waters surrounding these island-nations. At the same time, WESPAC should not be tyring to exploit their resources for U.S. commercial extraction either.
WESPAC and the U.S. military: they are the left and right boots of the U.S. empiral march over the people of the Pacific.
That said, I had to laugh reading this. It is just so ironic to hear Kitty of all people advocating for more transparency and public participation in the decision-making process. (Someone please launch the pigs.)
Adding to the irony of Kitty’s argument here: there were public hearings held on the designation of additional marine monuments throughout the Pacific. I attended the one in Honolulu myself. It was conveniently located just down the block from WESPAC’s annual 3-day meeting. Unfortunately, I didn’t see any of the WESPAC representatives at that public hearing on the monuments.
Marine monuments shouldn’t have higher priority than people
By Kitty Simonds
Honolulu Star-Bulletin
January 18, 2009
WestPac – The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council – appreciates the Bush administration’s recognition that the newly proclaimed U.S. Pacific island marine monument waters have been “effectively regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and by WestPac.” These new national monuments “are complementary strategies” to the fisheries management plans developed by the council, noted Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality.
Under the council’s plans, a ban on all fishing from 0 to 50 fathoms (300 feet) depth has been in effect since 2004 in all of the areas. Coral reefs do not live below this depth. Pelagic fishing by vessels larger than 50 feet in length has been banned within 50 miles of the Rose Atoll wildlife refuge in American Samoa since 2002. Under the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge status, commercial fishing has been banned within 12 miles of Palmyra since 2001.
The council looks forward to continuing its work to protect everyone’s interest in these areas.
However, it is concerned that the Antiquities Act, used to create these enormous marine monuments, currently bypasses the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates an environmental review as well as an appropriate participatory process for the indigenous people and other members of the public. The Antiquities Act should be amended to require NEPA as well as congressional approval of future monuments, as it does in Wyoming and Alaska.
The U.S. Pacific Islands now account for half of the marine protected areas in the United States. Local commercial fishermen are banned from nearly a quarter of the waters surrounding the U.S. Pacific islands. The significant loss of fishing areas can be counterproductive to sustainable fishery goals. Reduction of available fishing areas often leads to increased fishing pressure in other areas. It also undermines cultural and ecological goals. Our populations consume three times the national average in seafood and should be able to eat their own fish. When local fisheries are closed, the consequence is air-freighting imported fresh fish, which has negative effects on climate change and ocean acidification by increasing the U.S. carbon footprint. The U.S. currently imports 86 percent of its seafood.
While well-regulated and monitored commercial fishing with no proven negative ecosystem effects are being banned, other activities that can harm the monument resources will be allowed. Military activities will continue and are expected to increase with the relocation of 8,000 Marines, plus their families, and 15,000 contract workers to Guam.
Military bombing in nearby Farallon de Medinilla in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is allowed to kill all the endangered megapodes (a flightless bird) on the island, under a Fish & Wildlife Service-issued biological opinion. Hawksbill, green and leatherback sea turtles, fruit bats and other plant and animal species are also affected by the bombing and other military activities.
The Bush administration has compared the new monuments to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, where monument designation has led to increased human activity from tourists, visitors and researchers. While traditional indigenous fishing is permitted, the fish must be consumed within the monument and cannot be brought back to family and communities.
The only way to realize the president’s dream for the new monuments is through much-needed funds to the U.S. Coast Guard and local government agencies to adequately patrol and enforce the waters surrounding the U.S. Pacific islands. The Marianas’ waters are within 1,500 to 2,000 miles of the Asian mainland and Southeast Asia and could be accessed by every major Asian fishing fleet.
We look forward to the promised economic bounty that the Marianas and American Samoa communities will receive from the monument designation, but hopefully, if it comes, it will not be at the expense of the environment or the indigenous people. Kitty Simonds is executive director of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.
Late in the day on December 23rd, the final version of the Monument management plan was quietly published on the Papahānaumokuākea website. No press release. No email to the list serv. Just a quick post on the eve of the Eve of Christmas, which just happened to get picked up in a google alert days later.
Given all the eco-mojo the Bush Administration has tried to squish out of this “blue asterisk,” you would expect a mighty deal be made of finally finishing the management plan two years later. The fact that the release was so secretive has gotta make you wonder what’s actually in it.
On their website, James Connaugton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality is quoted as saying:
“When President Bush first designated the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in June 2006, his goal was to move beyond just thinking about conservation to carefully managing this important area.”
Yikes! What does the federal government mean exactly when it says “move beyond” conservation?
Well, from what we see in the plan it means:
no limit on military activities affecting Monument resources (not even a discussion of what it would take to abide by the proclamation and “minimize and mitigate” half-pound pieces of fiery shrapnel hitting Nihoa).
no ban on bioprospecting, which is the taking of public trust resources for exploitation and profit by corporations, academic institutions, and private individuals.
no limit on the number of people that can access and/or take from this “no take” reserve.
no assessment of the cumulative risks and impacts of past and anticipated human activity in the Monument.
no public advisory council, which has been key in forcing transparent & accountable decisionmaking.
Over 50% of the proposed 355 million-dollar budget is for government operations and research, while a mere 12% goes to reducing existing threats, like clean-up of marine debris and legacy military contamination. The plan also fails to allocate sufficient resources for Native Hawaiian involvement in Monument decision-making, and leaves decision-making to a closed-door Monument Management Board.
The plan essentially abandons the “precautionary principle,” which was a hallmark of the State’s visionary pre-monument protections that required biological, cultural and historic resource integrity be favored when the impacts of any proposed activity were uncertain.
So while the revised vision, mission, and goals now commit to conservation as the purpose of the Monument, you can see that the actions to implement this plan remain largely unimproved over the weak draft released earlier this Spring.
When the draft version of this plan was released, the National Wildlife Federation, the Center for Biological Diversity and more than a dozen other organizations–representing well over 5 million people–joined KAHEA in strongly criticizing the management plan. Despite two years of advocacy, and thousands of public letters and comments calling for a stronger, more protective plan, it is apparent that our united call for a true pu‘uhonua didn’t fit with the federal government’s vision for the future of “conservation” in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
So, here’s our take – a quote for the papers – on the federal government’s attempt to “move beyond” conservation:
“This is conservation on paper, but not in practice. They have reshuffled the goals to say ‘full conservation’ but their proposed actions speak louder than their words. They are exempting increased military exercises proposed for this extremely delicate ocean habitat from management. They are proposing increased tourism, new construction, and extractive research without adequate public oversight and Native Hawaiian consultation,” said Marti Townsend, Program Director of KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance.
To learn more about this issue, including a detailed review of the draft plan, visit our website at: www.kahea.org
From todayʻs Washington Post, looks like Oregon Professor will be tapped to head up the National Ocean and Atospheric Administration. NOAA is one of three co-trustees (the other two are the Department of Interior and the State of Hawaii) entrusted with conservation of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
On Friday, in response to a petition from KAHEA, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Ocean Conservancy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced it will consider designating additional critical habitat for the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal in the Northwestern as well as Main Hawaiian Islands. This is an important first step! Hawaiian monk seals are today one of the most endangered marine mammals in the world.
The petition seeks to have beaches and surrounding waters throughout Hawai’i protected as critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals under the Endangered Species Act.
What will more critical habitat for monk seals do? More critical habitat will require the federal government to limit federal activities that could harm the beaches and nearshore waters used by monk seals. It will prevent the federal government from permitting a private development or constructing a federal highway that might harm protected critical habitat. It would also give the State access to federal funds to support state efforts to encourage monk seal recovery.
What does it NOT do? This would not in any way limit public access to beaches or give the federal government any new control over our beaches or add any new restrictions on fishing.
Why do we need more critical habitat?The monk seal currently has critical habitat designated only in areas of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, where monk seals are dying of starvation and populations of monk seals are plummeting. Seal pups have only about a one-in-five chance of surviving to adulthood. Other threats include becoming entangled and drowning in abandoned fishing gear, shark predation, and disease.
At the same time, the main islands are becoming increasingly important habitat for the monk seals. Monk seals in the main Hawaiian Islands are thriving and giving birth to healthy pups. Hawaiian monk seals are present on each of the main islands, and their numbers are steadily increasing.
“This government finding that it will consider designating critical habitat for monk seals in the main Hawaiian Islands marks an important step toward preventing the extinction of the Hawaiian monk seal,” said Miyoko Sakashita, a staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity and author of the petition. “Habitat in the main Hawaiian Islands is essential for the survival of the imperiled monk seals.”
Habitat in the main islands will also provide a refuge for monk seals as sea-level rise floods the low-lying Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Global warming is an overarching threat to the Hawaiian monk seal and its habitat. Already, important beaches where seal pups are born and raised have been lost due to sea-level rise and erosion.
“We have already seen the extinction of the Caribbean monk seal–a relative of the Hawaiian monk seal. The threat is real and we must act now,” said Vicki Cornish, vice president of marine wildlife conservation at Ocean Conservancy. “We are greatly encouraged by this consideration to extend critical habitat designation in the main Hawaiian Islands. It is a necessary step in making sure Hawaiian monk seals do not suffer the same fate as their relatives.”
Critical habitat designation will mean greater protection of Hawaiian monk seal habitat under the Endangered Species Act. Once designated, any federal activities that may affect the critical habitat must undergo review to ensure that those activities do not harm the Hawaiian monk seal or its habitat.
In passing the Endangered Species Act, Congress emphasized the importance of critical habitat, stating that “the ultimate effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act will depend on the designation of critical habitat.” Recent studies have shown that species with critical habitat are twice as likely to recover as species without it.
“What happens in the coming few years will determine the survival of this species,” according to Marti Townsend, Program Director of KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance. “We cannot afford the extinction of a creature so sacred in Hawaiian culture and endemic to these islands. And we cannot expect to save this species without engaging in the hard task of meaningfully protecting habitat.”
Video of the Honolulu hearing on the Draft Management Plan for the Papahanaumokuakea Marine Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands held in Honolulu on June 24th. The 1,200 page plan will direct the future of public trust resources in the last, large intact Hawaiian reef ecosystem in the world.
At the hearing, leading local conservation voices, including Keiko Bonk, Marjorie Ziegler, Dr. Stephanie Fried, Kyle Kajihiro, Leila Hubbard, Dave Raney, Don May and KAHEA staff (Evan, Bryna, Marti, and Miwa) testified to their concerns about the draft plan. (Testimony starts at 33:30).
In the largest no-take marine reserve on the planet, this draft of the Federal/State plan is proposing: the construction of a “small municipality” on Midway, new cruise ships, more tourists, increases in extractive research, new risks of invasive species introductions, exemptions for fishing, and opening of the area to bioprospecting. An expansion of military activities–including sonar, ballistic missile interceptions, and chemical warfare simulations–would be allowed to go forward with no mitigations. The plan also disbands the existing citizen advisory council, which is pretty much the only opportunity for members of the public (non-government scientists, advocates, cultural practitioners, and resource experts) to participate in decision-making.
Evan is our rock star summer intern here at KAHEA, a UH Law Student, and Fellow with the Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law. He has spent much of the last month combing the 1,200 page draft plan for the future of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands–some of the last intact Hawaiian coral reef on the planet. He has been working along with experts in resource management, science and cultural practice to review, analyze and develop our detailed comments on the draft plan.
After a two-year multi-agency effort, the public had only 75 days to muster up comments on the four-volume draft. Tomorrow is the deadline [the deadline was recently extended 15 days to July 23] thus far, we have simply not heard from the people.
Among the greatest concerns in the current draft is the abandonment of the “precautionary principle,” which requires biological, cultural and historic resource protection and integrity to be favored when there is a lack of information regarding the potential impacts of any activity.
After the public spoke clearly about their desire to maintain this fragile ocean wilderness as a pu’uhonua (forever sanctuary), this principle was firmly embedded into the presidential proclamation that established the monument.
Instead, this “do no harm” mandate was watered down and replaced with research plans of a questionable nature and vamped-up visitor plans. Even more important, the people have been stripped from the process.
The draft plan fails to mention retaining a public oversight committee. The Reserve Advisory Council played a pivotal role in providing public oversight in the creation of the monument, yet any similar entity has been eliminated.
Other areas where notable improvements can be made include: the need for Native Hawaiian involvement in the leadership and management of the monument; revisions to the permitting process, including renewal and enforcement; prioritizing research around critical conservation needs; the absence of an effective cumulative impact analysis, excessive ecotourism and visitor plans on Midway; and an incomplete and largely unsubstantiated cultural impact assessment.
With time running out, I urge you to visit www.kahea.org to see some of the major concerns that have been outlined by citizens, scientists, environmental advocates and Native Hawaiians who have been diligently parsing the draft proposal.
Thanks to your strong requests for additional time, government managers have granted an extra 15-days for public comment–moving the final deadline for comments to July 23. It ain’t much, but it is something.
If you’re a member of the KAHEA Action Alert Network, you’ve been seeing alerts on protecting the future of the pristine coral reefs of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (also known as the NWHI)… for about a month now.
We’re taking our extra 15 days, and along with thousands of others around the world, we’re asking for a better, stronger management plan. This plan spells out how the NWHI will be protected for the next 15 years.
So we’ll say it again! Without a better plan, we will be opening the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to :
- Expanded military activities with NO mitigations
- Increased extractive research with NO protection from bioprospecting
- Increased development footprint, and more construction
- Increased vessel traffic
- Cruise ships and increases in permitted tourism
From our buddy Oren, who helped us get this public hearing documented and on air:
The video taping of the Honolulu hearing on the Draft Management Plan for The Papahanaumokuakea Marine Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands held in Honolulu on June 24th will be aired on ‘Olelo Community Television on ch. 52 as well as on its internet website olelo.net–which simultaneously streams ch. 52.
In a few days we maybe able to get it on the internet for anyone to watch at any time.
I’d like to thank especially Bill Sager, John Isagawa, Dave Gonzales, Rob Kinslow and the peoples’ at ‘Olelo Community Television —with a lot of their efforts—-, all of whom, who helped to tape this thing together.
RIMPAC officially started on Sunday, meaning you can expect beach closures, random explosions, mass strandings, and displays of excessive military force throughout the month of July in Hawaii. Remember, RIMPAC is the bi-annual demonstration of U.S.-occupation that brought us the “Hanalei Bay Incident” in 2004, when 150 melonhead whales attempted to strand themselves because of the Navy’s use of high-intensity active sonar AND the unexplained nearshore explosion that shook the windows of Ewa Beach residents on Oahu in 2006.
This year we can look forward to 150 vessels and 20,000 troops from U.S.-backed militaries — like Russia, South Korea, Australia, Japan, and Peru — engaged in all kinds of wargames, such as assault landings, target practice with live rounds, and high-intensity active sonar.
To move forward with these (and all) exercises as originally outlined in the Navy’s giant range expansion plan, the Navy had to do *something* about the pesky limitations placed on those exercises by the State of Hawaii under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). This federal law was passed to encourage coastal states to do more to protect their precious coastal resources, including giving these states unique authority to require federal agencies abide by state coastal protections.
Under this unique federal law, the State of Hawaii said the Navy had to do two very reasonable things related to active sonar:
1. In nearshore waters, don’t let the active sonar go above 145 decibels because this is widely accepted (even by the Navy) to be a safe level for marine mammals and humans;
2. In all other situations, abide by the conditions required by Judge Erza in the Federal District Court.
It’s not just that the Navy said “No, we don’t have to follow your stinkin’ coastal protections,” but that the Navy enlisted other government attorneys to say “no” for them in a way that would have undermine all of the cooperative state-federal partnerships set up to protect U.S. coastal resources.
I say “would have” because the legal opinion the Navy ended up with is so poorly argued that it probably won’t have much affect. Of course, it will probably take more court action at some level to sort that out.
The two basic reasons why the Navy’s legal game of Twister fails is:
1. It relies on a court opinion that was vacated, meaning the judge revisited her decision and changed her mind based on new evidence or arguments.
2. The new argument that changed the judge’s mind was that the Endangered Species Act actually says states do, in fact, have the authority to protect endangered marine species to greater extent than the federal government. And it’s well accepted that the Endangered Species Act trumps the Marine Mammal Protection Act when it comes to endangered marine species.
Sigh.
We’ll continue to keep you updated on this saga. In the meantime, you can send your thanks to the State Planning and Director Abbey Mayer for standing up for coastal protections in Hawai`i nei.
From Evan, law school student and Legal Fellow from the Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law working on staff with KAHEA this summer:
Was thrown into the deep waters of the 1,200 page Papahanaumokuakea Draft Monument Management Plan for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands this summer. It’s given me a unique opportunity to observe the workings of this “public” process. I’ve worked with experts in reviewing the plan, and attended several of the public hearings set up by the State/Federal Co-Trustee agencies. My observation: It is a recipe for disaster to take two years of closed door processes, package it into 4 very thick volumes and then expect the public at large to comment in any detail about what the plan entails. (This is what 700 pages of the 1,200 page plan looks like. Erm, fun.)
I first attended the hearing at the Department of the Interior in Washington D.C. (the only hearing held outside our lovely archipelago). I was quickly made aware of the fact that I would be the only person offering public testimony. So much for the public in this public hearing.
After giving an impassioned 20 minute explanation of KAHEAʻs overarching concerns, I was flooded with a steady stream of “How do you do’s?” and “Can we get a copy of your testimony?” from interested national NGO’s and congressional staffers. I was glad for the opportunity to get the word out on our key concerns, despite the dismal showing of public engagement.
The next chance I had to attend was the final night of the Federal/State Co-Trustee Island Summer Hearings Tour 2008. From all accounts, the crowd of about 60 at the Japanese Cultural Center in Moilili was by far the largest of any of the meetings. The format was a little different from D.C. and to be honest, quite unlike anything I had ever witnessed before. After a formal introduction to the Monument (same as D.C.), was an open discussion with Monument staff who were broken into 6 tables that synchronized with 6 priority management needs from the plan. It had an element of “spoon-feeding” to it, and considering that many had come to supply public testimony, made things run a little later than they may have otherwise. Nonetheless, I found this segue to be a nice opportunity to bring some of my major gripes with the plan directly to the folks who had put it together.
Over the course of this experience, I have been amazed at the bizarre nature of this top-down “public” process.
When asked: “Why was the citizen’s advisory council removed from the plan?”
A rep responded: “Actually, we do want one. We left it out because we wanted to see what the public would come up with during the review period.”
I’d suggest that a proper, engaged public process wouldn’t have waited until the review period to see what the “the public would come up with.” It all reminded me of the hide the ball game my law professors sometimes like to play. Except this is not law school. Why intentionally leave something as important as public oversight and advisory committees out of the plan, on purpose? Something as important as the Monument surely deserves better!
All told, the nine public meetings yielded about 250 total attendees and 70 testifiers. Not exactly up to par with the 100,000+ comments that helped create the Monument. Essentially, there was very little public atin these public meetings.
It is the job of the government managers to engage the public in this process–to bring the place and the process to the people. The length of time since the Co-Trustees have seen daylight, coupled with the sheer magnitude of the plan are likely culprits for this erosion of public engagement. I simply cannot accept that after previous outpourings of energy, suddenly nobody cares enough about this place to speak out. Another likely reality involves the seventy five day open period for submitting comments, which is rapidly coming to a close on July 8th. Compared to the two years it took countless full time staff to develop the plan, 75 days is simply too short a time to garner the effective and real public involvement needed to protect this special place.
This is one of the truly intact Hawaiian reef ecosystems left on earth–precious cultural and natural heritage that deserves our attention and voices. You can learn more about problems with the current plan, and how to ask for a better process and more time to get the “public” involved at: www.kahea.org.
After initially contesting the violation, she and HIMB finally accepted the enforcement action earlier this year. (But only after third-party legal intervention by us at KAHEA!) She remains under investigation for other violations related to illegal disease cultivation and importation.
We have taken some heat for standing up and urging the full enforcement of the law for this HIMB researcher. Do we hate HIMB? Do we hate researchers? Absolutely not. There are plenty of good people who work at HIMB, many of whom are our friends.
What we ARE saying is that no matter who you are, the rules apply. HIMB researchers, commercial and recreational fishers–all the same. The protective rules are in place for good reason, rules for which many people fought incredibly hard. Through many years, and sometimes at great personal expense, they fought to protect this place as an intact natural and cultural legacy for future generations. This is about responsibility and it is about respect. Responsible research is about respect for the resource and respect for the people to whom the resource ultimately belongs.
Thanks to the participation of over 100,000 members of the public, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are today protected as the largest no-take marine reserve on the planet. Permits are required to access the area, and research permits in particular, are considered a privilege for those researchers who are contributing directly to conservation of the area and can conduct their activities responsibly–with little to no impact. This is because our policies and rules in Hawai`i recognize that irresponsibly conducted research poses serious risks and can cause serious harms.
We commend the BLNR for upholding the rules in place to protect the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Through strong rules and strong enforcement, we can continue to keep this place as a true pu`uohonua. Forever.
We live in the endangered species capitol of the planet, islands impacted heavily by the onslaught of invasive species and the impacts of climate change on our Hawaiian reefs. In the face of all this, we believe that for this one, last intact and pristine Hawaiian place, we can act together to do the right thing.
A short video we put together on the new draft of a 15-year plan for the future of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.* We’ve read all 1,200 pages of it, and reviewed it with experts everywhere from Sierra Club to Environmental Defense. Our conclusion? We can do much, much better.
Now, we’re seeking signatures on a petition asking for a better, stronger Plan for this fragile wahi pana.
The current draft is a plan for conservation which, inexplicably, actually expands the footprint of human activity in this pristine and uniquely Hawaiian coral reef ecosystem.
In the largest no-take marine reserve on the planet, this draft of the Federal/State plan is proposing the construction of a “small municipality” on Midway, new cruise ships, more tourists, increases in extractive research, new risks of invasive species introductions, exemptions for fishing, and opening of the area to bioprospecting. An expansion of military activities–including sonar, ballistic missile interceptions, and chemical warfare simulations–would be allowed to go forward with no mitigations. The plan also disbands the existing citizen advisory council, which is pretty much the only opportunity for members of the public (non-government scientists, advocates, cultural practitioners, and resource experts) to participate in decision-making. Yeesh.
Over 100,000 people from all over the world helped establish the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument and the Hawaii State NWHI Refuge–perhaps the most visionary legal marine area protections in history. We need to ask government managers for a plan which upholds these strong protections. We should be working towards full conservation, NOT creating and formalizing exceptions to the rules. That’s our position, anyway.
If you agree, please take a few seconds to add your name to the petition. This last intact, endangered and uniquely Hawaiian coral reef ecosystem deserves a plan for its FULL conservation. Unless we show broad public support, protections we fought so hard for will be paper, not practice.
*The hearings mentioned in the video are over, but there is still one week left to make your voice heard. More information at www.kahea.org. Deadline is July 8, 2008.
We opened up the Star-Bulletin on Sunday, and there in the Gathering Place section was long-time NWHI advocate Uncle Buzzy, calling for a renewed public commitment to a true pu`uhonua — a ‘forever sanctuary’ — in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Ho‘omaika‘i ia Uncle Buzzy!
Uncle Louis “Buzzy” Agard, is a founding Board Member of KAHEA and a revered kupuna (elder) who lived and fished in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) for many years. In 2001, he was honored by President Clinton at the establishment of the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. Today, Uncle Buzzy still serves on the citizen advisory council (RAC) for the Reserve and remains a staunch advocate for the strongest possible protections in the NWHI.
Excerpts from his editorial:
In 2005, the state of Hawaii finally embraced what native Hawaiians have known for generations: the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are a delicate, sacred ecosystem that must be respected. The state took a visionary step forward establishing the first state marine refuge in the NWHI and requiring that human activity there “do no harm” to this fragile ecosystem. In 2006, the federal government followed suit, establishing the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument. These protected areas rely on permits to control the human footprint up there.
But today more and more people are going to the NWHI for research, education, even sightseeing. Any time you set something off limits, people want to go there; this is the irony of our success in establishing protections for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Already this year, permits have been granted to allow unlimited numbers of people to go to the NWHI to do any kind of dredging, discharging and taking, even recreational fishing. Researchers have violated their permits and we have seen little will for enforcement. This is wrong. We must change our attitude about this place entirely — there should be no human footprint there.
Millions of dollars have been set aside by the federal government, and with good intentions. But money is a magnet for people. They see the money and their first question is, “What can I propose to do up there?” A scientist will say to the Hawaiian fisher, “Take only what you need,” but in his research practice he doesn’t heed his own advice. This is not why the people of Hawaii and the world fought so hard to protect this place.
The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands is a place of great hope for the future of the resources in our oceans, and it is for this reason that we set it aside. Let us honor the commitment we made to protect this fragile place as a true pu`uhonua.
I admit to still being on cloud 9 about the recent announcement of the hearing officer’s decision on KAHEA’s standing to participate in the contested case on the research permit violations in the NWHI. Hooray! What an amazing affirmation of the power of showing up.
We have attended every possible hearing about research permits to the NWHI and raised serious concerns about the lack of enforcement action on these research permit violations. We have shown up to talk about the lack of standards to determine who should be allowed up there and the lack of best practices to ensure their activities do no harm, as the law requires. We have again and again said that these research permit violations are a serious breach of public trust, and that rules should apply equally, no matter who is in violation–everyone should be held to the same standard: fishers, researchers, sight-seers, everyone.
I wish had a dime for every time I’ve heard someone say with regards to these research violations, “Trust me, researchers would never harm the resource.” Talk about totally missing the point. The point is that researchers, like everyone else, are obligated to know and follow the rules put in place to protect this fragile public trust resource. Simple as that. The fact is most people don’t ever to intend to harm the environment, but they do because they don’t follow the rules, don’t think that their actions could have an impact.
It was incredibly empowering to sit at that hearing table – elbow to elbow with HIMB’s attorney and the Attorney General on behalf of DLNR – and have an impartial officer of the court listen to all three sides. We had an equal opportunity to present arguments and evidence. And in the end, this impartial officer said, “Yes, KAHEA brings a meaningful perspective to this discussion and should be party to this case.”
Wow. For that, my faith in the public decision-making process is renewed. We couldn’t have asked for a more meaningful affirmation of our voice and role.
Too often the voices of those most directly affected by the decisions of officials are marginalized or even lost altogether. It is easy for money and politics to drive decisions. But when those influences are stripped away and those who have nothing to give but love for our ‘aina – people like Uncle Buzzy – can sit at a table and be heard on equal terms with all rest… that is when the best decisions are made.
It was these people – those without power or money – that led the struggle for the strongest possible protections in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and successfully made their voice heard. And it will be these same people who will continue to ensure that those protections are fully implemented and enforced…. because these protections are nothing if they aren’t enforced, fully.
Hooray, hooray today–for the little guy!
Highlights of KAHEA’s concerns about lack of DLNR enforcement (from our recent webpage update):
The violations were first reported to DLNR staff in May 2006 while the vessel was still in the NWHI. But DLNR staff failed to notify the proper enforcement division, DOCARE, until late February 2007, almost a year after the infractions occurred. No investigators met the ship when it docked in Honolulu to inspect what the researchers brought back with them.
“This is a major problem,” said Marti Townsend, Program Director for KAHEA. “The history of close working relationships between DLNR and HIMB staff has clearly called into question DLNR’s ability to be objective and properly enforce the law.”
Before the incidents were investigated by DOCARE and voted on by the Land Board, staff with the Aquatics Division of DLNR attempted to negotiate a penalty with the researchers at HIMB. The staff brought the enforcement action before the BLNR twice – first in January 2007 and again in July 2007. Both times the staff recommended that the Land Board impose weakened penalties against the HIMB researcher, side-stepping the Refuge’s strict “one strike” law that prohibits future permits to be granted to past permit violators.
“Given all of the tremendous public support for the strongest possible protections, and political will for the creation of these protections, it is astonishing that personal friendships and financial ties still seem to determine the near absolute lack of enforcement of NWHI rules,” said Townsend.
It’s true that the HIMB researcher currently under investigation for NWHI permit violations is coral disease researcher, and that coral disease is bad stuff. In doing this work, we’ve learned more about coral disease than we probably ever wanted to–coral disease is an important concern in our oceans worldwide.
What’s important to understand is that: It’s not just about understanding the ecosystem and its resources.
It is about achieving that understanding in a pono way–by researchers who respect the cultural and natural significance of the resource, take responsibility for their actions, and are committed to following the rules put in place to protect this fragile and uniquely Hawaiian place.
And so you have to ask: was this research done in a pono way?
The 2006 HIMB expedition on the NOAA vessel, Hi`ialakai, was one of the first major expeditions permitted in the newly established no-take state Refuge for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
Despite a prohibition on the transport of live samples and the dumping of wastewater, state and federal officials noticed the researcher was transporting pieces of live coral over 100 miles across the multiple state and federal designated marine protected areas in an open-flow holding tank — a system that dumps used water from the tank back into the ocean.
Official reports also allege she cultivated bacteria associated with coral disease while the ship traveled from Johnston Atoll.
HIMB was not granted a permit to import coral or bacteria from Johnston Atoll to the Main Hawaiian Islands from the Agriculture Department. Nonetheless, the researcher was discovered to have bacteria samples from both NWHI and Johnston Atoll under cultivation on board the Hi`ialakai.
We’re not the only ones for whom this stuff seemed just a little, er, inappropriate.
The methods proposed by the HIMB disease researcher had also raised red flags in the scientific community. Before the vessel departed from Honolulu, scientific advisors reviewing the researchers proposal to import disease bacteria from Johnston Atoll to the Main Hawaiian Islands for the state Department of Agriculture noted “possible disastrous consequences” from the research methods, including the spread of potentially invasive coral species and coral disease.
In their report, they discuss the “unclear scientific merit” of the research and found “little evident benefits from a conservation perspective.” They also expressed specific concerns about the proposed use of an “open flow” system for the transport of live samples and, instead, recommended that “all water in which the corals or microbes from them are held shall be kept in containers that do not release effluents into open or semi-open systems unless that water is sterilized or disinfected.”
I come from a conservation and research background–and I admit that makes me feel a bit squirmy when the human footprint being talked about hits so close to home. This is a true test for all of us–for conservation and science communities–to recognize the scope of impact of our own activities. For a place as fragile, and as culturally and ecologically unique as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, this means taking a hard look at our attitudes, our institutions, our intentions, and our ambitions.
In the end, it’s really all about respect. It’s either there, or it’s not. Respect for rules, respect for the resource, and respect for the concerned public to whom this public trust resource ultimately belongs.
In her testimony to the BLNR on July 27, 2007, the HIMB researcher under investigation defended her actions, characterizing the violations as a “minor misunderstanding.”
“There was never any risk to the environment for what I did, whether it was approved or not,” she testified.
For the largest conservation area of its kind in the world, for the people who fought so hard for the rules protecting this incredible and untouched Hawaiian place, for all the future generations of Hawaiian people to whom this place also belongs… I have to believe that we can do better.
(top picture from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5084944.stm, bottom from kahea.org)
Investigation of HIMB Research Permit Violations for Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Expanded, Contested Case Hearing Officer Recommends Long-Time Advocate, KAHEA, Be Party to the Case
HONOLULU – In a historic move, citing KAHEA’s long history of actions to protect the NWHI, state-appointed hearing officer for the Board of Land and Natural Resources, Louis Chang, recommended on Friday that the Board grant KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance standing as a party to a landmark case concerning the first recorded major violations of the state’s new stringent Northwestern Hawaiian Island Refuge rules. “The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are a public trust resource, and we welcome this affirmation of our kuleana to ensure that the strict rules we worked so hard to establish are fully enforced so that this fragile and unique place is well-protected,” said Vicky Holt-Takamine, KAHEA Board of Directors President.
Federal and state officials have testified that in 2006, during one of the first major research expeditions permitted to conduct extractive activities in the state’s newly created no-take Refuge, scientists from the Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) — including a former state Department of Land and Natural Resources employee –cultivated coral disease bacteria in the NWHI, transported bacteria within and outside of the NWHI, and attempted to bring bacteria cultures to the Main Hawaiian Islands, in violation of the state’s strict permit requirements and state and federal quarantine and customs laws regarding the transport and import of disease organisms. Officials testified that an HIMB disease researcher harvested, cultivated, and transported live coral within the NWHI, dumping wastewater from the coral tank overboard as they traveled between islands. These actions, which occurred in 2006, represent serious violations of state permit conditions designed to protect the NWHI from the spread of disease and invasive species, as well as state and federal laws.
The NWHI Refuge specifically establishes a ‘do no harm’ standard for all activities there,” said Louis “Buzzy” Agard, former NWHI resident who fished commercially there and later fought for strong conservation measures. “This should mean human activity in the NWHI is strictly limited so as to leave no human footprint on what is left of this delicate marine ecosystem.” According to Agard, “If this were a fishing violation, they’d throw the book at them. But this is a case of colleagues and friends of DLNR staff. There seems to be a double standard for these violators.”
Efforts by the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) to block enforcement of strict state rules protecting the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands State Refuge were dealt a blow with the publication of the recommendation on Friday indicating that — as per KAHEA’s request — the investigation into apparently illegal activities would now be broadened and that KAHEA has standing in the case. There have been persistent rumors, however, of back-room attempts to lobby Board members regarding this case and to encourage DLNR to take extraordinary measures to overturn the hearing officer’s recommendation.
“This is historic,” said Miwa Tamanaha, Executive Director of KAHEA. “We have serious allegations of research permit violations in the face of more people and research vessels heading to the NWHI. What is decided here in this first enforcement action against research permit violations will affect all future decisions about how to fully protect this uniquely Hawaiian no-take marine environment.”
The Land Board is expected to rule on the recommendation March 7, 2008.
You can see the full case filings and get more information at www.KAHEA.org
(top photo from keoki, and bottom photo from kahea.org.)
This blog is a project of KAHEA: the Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, a non-profit 501(c)3 working to protect the unique natural and cultural resources of the Hawaiian islands. KA HEA translates to english as "the call."
To get involved and learn more about KAHEA's work and programs in Hawaii, please visit us at: www.kahea.org
E ho'omalu kakou i ka pono, ke 'ano o ka nohona a me ka 'aina mai na kupuna mai. | Protecting Native Hawaiian Traditional and Customary Rights and Our Fragile Environment
If Kitty Simonds (WESPAC Exec.) really believes what she wrote in this Sunday-Editorial, then this woman needs to take a good look in the mirror. She calls out the U.S. military for the harm its presence causes the people of the Pacific, when WESPAC’s own mismanagement over the last 25 years has decimated multiple fisheries here.
