“We are the Kānaka. We are the Hawaiians. We are the ones who, if you screw it up, have nowhere else to go. Whose mana, whose ancestors, whose everything, will be lost.” - Testimony from one uncle from Oʻahu to the Ocean Policy Task Force members.
So, I only made it to the last hour or so of the Ocean Policy Task Force Honolulu “listening” session yesterday, but here are a few of my observations from the time I was there (The amazing Marti and our board member Kealoha Pisciotta were there throughout the afternoon):
Despite the tsunami warning in the AM, it was still a pretty packed room with people from around the islands. (Brothers and sisters in Samoa, in our thoughts.) Thanks to all who heard the kāhea and came out!
In June, the President made a commitment to dramatically improve the health of the ocean. As per usual, however, the push towards a unified U.S. ocean policy may get hijacked by corporate interests seeking to exploit our oceans and may end up undermining local management efforts. Original plans by the Feds were to hold this session in San Francisco only, meaning a 3,000+ miles trek and thousands of dollars in travel costs for concerned Hawai’i (and other peoples of the Pacific) residents. We fought hard to have this “listening session” in Honolulu.
So first, let me say that it was great to actually see administration officials IN Hawai’i, face-to-face with people of the Pacific. In principle? Listening Session = Awesome. In practice? It was sort of more like a “we’ll-listen-to-the-guys-we-want-to-hear-from, and-then-the- rest-of-you-can-talk, at-least-until-we-have-to-leave-for-dinner” session.
There was a hand-picked panel of “stakeholders” up first, ostensibly representing different “stakeholder groups.” Administration officials were about 6 feet above the audience, lined up at a table on a stage, listening. After the panel, the floor was opened up to “everyone else.” At six o’clock, administration officials called it quits. Approximately 35 people who had waited hours to testify, were sent away.
I argued against this kind of “listening” model a lot when I worked in government. The problem I have with this kind of “stakeholder representation” process–the problem I’ve always had with this kind of process–is that it allows a small group of government officials to arbitrarily elevate the voices of a favored few, while demoting the voices of others.
Officials and government staff and consultants favor this kind of model because it gives them a sense that they are being “fair”–through the stakeholder panel, different groups are “equally” represented (e.g., this guy represents business, this guy represents Hawaiians, this guy represents surfers, this guy represents conservation interests)–in an orderly fashion that doesn’t take up a ton of their time and minimizes their being yelled at.
These are all understandably human desires. Orderly = good. Being yelled at = bad.
The problem, is that this is a false sense of order. In reality (where all of us actually live), the world is messy, it is complex, it is imbued with people’s passions, guided by what they care about, filled with uncertain choices, and sometimes charged by their righteous outrage.
Being listened to by government on the fate and future of resources in the public trust should not be a privilege, but a sacred right.
Kealoha noted how much of the public testimony (outside the panel) really focused on the unique needs of Pacific Island nations, sovereignty, the need to acknowlege Hawaiian right-holders, and the imperative to respectfully seek and request indigenous knowledge and ways-of-knowing.
For Hawaiʻi, the stakes are incredibly high. In Hawai’i, we are a place of ocean. The future of Hawaiian waters is the future of Hawai’i. And, (I say this with all due respect) if you must be late to dinner, Dr. Lubchenko, because you are listening to what citizens in Hawai’i have travelled miles to say about their own future, I think maybe that should be okay.
But as a beginning, I left this “listening session” feeling… hopeful. This process will continue over the next year or so, and with more opportunities for Hawaiʻi communities to meaningfully speak to the future of our public trust Hawaiian waters. Please be on the lookout for the next kāhea to participate!
You can still submit written testimony to the Task Force online here.
For the past few weeks there have been numerous articles, editorials, and letters to editors in several local newspapers regarding open ocean aquaculture. A recent editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser states that
the large size and experimental nature of the [Hawaii Oceanic Tech] project demands that state regulators, and the public, keep a critical eye on the project as it moves forward.
The article goes on to say that the objective of this project is an organic, ecologically sustainable fish.
PROBLEM #1: Organic. The problem with this is that there are no organic standards for fish farming. It would also be especially hard to develop one for open ocean aquaculture, because the cages are not closed systems. Anything that is in the water will wind up in the bodies of the fish.
Hawaii Oceanic Tech also hopes to use “organic feed” for their fish. The main ingredient in HOTIs feed will be “sardines from sustainable fish stocks”. But, this goes back to what I said above: there are no organic standards for fish, so any claims of their feed being so are false.
PROBLEM #2: Ecologically Sustainable. This is a tricky one, just because it is so undefined. What is ecologically sustainable? Everything humanity does will impact the environment in some way. Perhaps ecologically sustainable means there is a balance of pros and cons for the environment. But what are the pros in this situation? Proponents of aquaculture say that farming fish gives wild populations a chance to repopulate, but this is easily proven wrong by the environmental havoc that fish farming has caused in British Columbia and other places where fish farms are popular. Many Canadians are embarrassed that their government has let the caged farming industry expand because of its serious impacts.
Just last month, Act 155 was passed in the Hawaii Legislature, amending Hawaii’s renewable energy law.
One of the highlights of this amendment was the strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (often abbreviated as RPS). These standards are binding for electric utility companies, which must satisfy the specified percentage of their net electricity sales with electricity generated from renewable energy sources by the specified date.
Now, Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards are as follows: 10% by 2010; 15% by 2015; 25% by 2020; and 40% by 2030. The two standards that Act 155 changed are the two later dates: the 2020 standard was increased by 5%, and the 2030 standard was a new addition.
This strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards was a wise move by the Hawaii Legislature. Hawaii should be a predominant leader in the renewable energy realm, considering that it is the most oil dependent state with over 90% of its energy needs met by imported fossil fuels– a doubly detrimental impact with carbon footprints from long-distance importation and burning. The context of climate change and sea-level rise heighten Hawaii’s energy vulnerability.
Yet, Hawaii is also ideally situated to move the ball forward with renewable energy due to the high availability of solar, wind, wave, and tidal energy. Thus, the Legislature’s addition of the long-term standard, 40% renewable-created electricity by 2030, is in line with Hawaii’s position of great need, vulnerability, and opportunism.
However, the short-term standard could be a bit more aggressive. Although a five-percent increase to 25% by 2020 is an improvement, a few other states have more stringent short-term standards. For example, California is requiring 20% renewable-created electricity by 2010– double Hawaii’s 2010 standard. And, Maine has a 2017 standard of 40%, Hawaii’s standard for 13 years later, while New York has a 2013 standard of 24%– 9% greater than Hawaii’s 2015 standard.
Regardless of the precise standards, the definition of “renewable energy” sources must be amended. While creating more stringent standards in the short-term is ideal, amending the definition of “renewable energy” to only encompass those sources that are truly clean is a must.
As it stands now, the definition of “renewable energy” does not contain any qualifications. For example, it includes “biofuels.” Such an unqualified authorization allows utility companies to meet the standard with, say, palm oil, which fits the broad definition of “biofuels.”
What’s the problem with palm oil qualifying as a renewable energy source? This “biofuel” implicates a significant carbon footprint due to carbon-emitting land change. After the deforestation, heavy fertilization, and peatland burning required to produce the palm oil, the production of this “biofuel” actually contributes more to global warming, opposed to ameliorating the crisis.
Renewable energy sources and, thus, renewable portfolio standards for utility companies should authorize only clean renewable sources in life-cycle terms. Renewability should be just one requisite for clean energy sources; the holistic footprint, including emissions, land change, and other environmental impacts, also must be taken into account.
Otherwise, we may simply displace the impact to another medium. Without amending the law to reflect this crucial qualification, the renewable portfolio standards may end up perpetuating the very problem that they are intended to improve.
Want Hawaii to lead a meaningful renewable energy transition?
Contact your representatives in the State Legislature and voice your opinion!
Here’s contact information for our House representatives:
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.
A proposed shark tour business was shut down in Hawaii Kai earlier this year because of opposition from the community. Controversy is now focused around the two main business on the North Shore: Hawaii Shark Encounters and North Shore Shark Adventures. There is a law that states, “it is unlawful to use food or any other substance in federal waters off Hawaii to attract sharks unless they are being caught or killed for human use”. Michael Tosatto, the deputy regional administrator with the National Marine Fisheries Service says, “Shark-encounter tours are not what’s illegal. Shark feeding is what’s illegal”, and it is known that these business chum the water to attract the sharks. Some are even hand fed.
Not only is it bad for these animals to become accustomed, and perhaps dependent on being fed by humans, it is also very dangerous. The sharks could start to associate food with humans, thus increasing the possiblility for attacks.
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
Star-Bulletin headline from yesterday: “Humans pose main trouble for isles’ coral, report says.” So says the report-back from the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium.
The good news is that on average Hawaiian reefs are doing better than those in other places under United States jurisdiction, despite pressures from human impacts. According to the report, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands–an area whose remoteness has protected it from many types of human impacts–are still considered relatively pristine.
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.
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.
Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat identifies geographic areas that contain features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and may require special management considerations.
Recent studies have shown that species with critical habitat are twice as likely to be recovering as species without it. Currently, the species has critical habitat designated only on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
The Hawaiian monk seal is one of the most endangered marine mammals in the world. Since the 1950s its population has dropped to about 1,300 animals and is continuing to decline. Scientists estimate populations will likely drop below 1,000 seals within a few years.
Monk seals in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are dying of starvation, emaciated and weak, scientists have found. Pups have only about a one-in-five chance of surviving to adulthood. Other threats include drowning in abandoned fishing gear, shark predation, and disease.
Hawaiian monk seals are increasingly populating the main islands, where they are giving birth to healthy pups. For the past decade, the number of Hawaiian monk seal births has increased each year on the main islands, and the population of seals is growing steadily; the seals are in better condition than those in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This indicates more food availability and a better chance of survival.
Global warming is also a threat to the survival of Hawaiian monk seals. Already, the conservation groups warn, important pupping beaches have been lost due to sea-level rise and erosion, and the northwestern islands will eventually disappear under predicted levels of sea-level rise since they are elevated only a few meters above sea level. The higher-elevation main islands are less vulnerable to sea-level rise.
Hawaiian monk seals are one of three species of monk seals. The Mediterranean monk seal is also critically endangered, while the Caribbean monk seal, which has not been seen in half a century, was declared extinct in June.
The Endangered Species Act requires that the government respond to this petition within 90 days.
The Supreme Court has taken up the question of whether the Bush Administration can exempt the Navy from laws protecting marine mammals from sonar, and media is chiming in. Both the New York Times and Star Bulletin have come out recently in favor of upholding environmental law when it comes to Navy training exercises.
Environmentalists have long claimed that the Navy’s use of sonar for training exercises unduly threatens whales, dolphins and other acoustically sensitive marine creatures. The Navy has adopted some procedures to mitigate the risk but has resisted stronger protections ordered by two federal courts. The Supreme Court has now agreed to address the issue.
The justices will not try to determine the extent of harm but rather the balance of power between the executive branch and the courts in resolving such issues. In an effort to sidestep the courts, the Bush administration invoked national security to exempt the Navy from strict adherence to the two federal environmental laws that underlay the court decisions. The top court will now have to decide whether the military and the White House should be granted great deference when they declare that national security trumps environmental protection or whether the courts have a role in second-guessing military judgments and claims of fact.
The case at hand was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other conservation groups to rein in Navy training exercises that use sonar to search for submarines off the coast of Southern California. The Navy says that its exercises pose little threat to marine life and that the training is vital to national security.
A federal district judge and a federal appeals court in California, after careful reviews of the facts, have found that the Navy’s arguments are largely hollow. Although the Navy likes to boast that there has never been a documented case of a whale death in 40 years of training, that may be mostly because no one has looked very hard. The Navy itself estimates that the current series of drills, conducted over two years, might permanently injure hundreds of whales and significantly disrupt the behavior of some 170,000 marine mammals.
No one has questioned that sonar training is vital to national security, and the federal courts have not tried to ban the training. They have simply tried to impose tough measures to minimize damage. The Navy objected to two proposed restrictions in particular — that it shut off its sonar when marine mammals are detected within 2,200 yards and power down its sonar under sea conditions that carry sound farther than normal.
High-ranking officers said these restrictions would cripple the Navy’s ability to train and certify strike groups as ready for combat. The appeals court, mining the Navy’s own reports of previous exercises, disagreed. It said the Navy, following earlier procedures, had already been shutting down sonars with little impact on training or certification.
It seems telling that the Navy has accepted the 2,200-yard safety zone for other sonar exercises. NATO requires the same zone, and the Australian Navy mandates a shutdown if a marine mammal is detected within 4,000 yards.
The federal courts have played a valuable role in deflating exaggerated claims of national security. Let us hope that the Supreme Court backs them up.
And, from our own Honolulu Star-Bulletin:
The Navy’s application for a new permit for sonar training exercises in Hawaii waters could be the last time it will need to go through the process, depending on a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Should the court agree with the Bush administration’s assertion that it has the authority to override laws that protect the environment and marine mammals, the Navy would no longer be required to seek the permits designed to minimize harm to ocean species.
The court is not expected to focus on a continuing dispute between the Navy and environmental organizations about the level of injury sonar causes to marine mammals.
Instead, justices will decide whether the administration, with the support of the military, can set aside enforcement of well-established law. The administration argues that protective conditions put in place by federal courts jeopardize “the Navy’s ability to train sailors and marines for wartime deployment.”
The claim is belied by the fact that the Navy has been able to conduct training while mitigating harm.
The case involves naval exercises off the Southern California cast in which a federal judge restricted mid-frequency sonar use and required it to be shut down when a marine mammal is sighted within 6,000 feet. In a similar ruling in Hawaii, federal Judge David Ezra established several guidelines, putting the range at 5,000 feet. The different requirements have frustrated the Navy, but they are due to variations in coastal waters and marine mammal populations.
While the California case was proceeding through the appeals court, President Bush exempted the Navy from the Coastal Zone Management Act. At the same time, an executive branch agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, granted an exemption of the National Environmental Policy Act, claiming an emergency situation. The Defense Department has previously claimed an exception for “military readiness activity,” as allowed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Through these laws, environmental groups have been successful in establishing restrictions, showing evidence that sonar soundings have injured or led to the deaths of whales. Navy studies have shown probable harm, disturbance or death to 175,000 marine mammals. The Navy also says only 37 whales have died from sonar since 1996, but that doesn’t mean that other haven’t been killed without their carcasses being found.
(Photo: 2006 dolphin stranding, Mozambique.)
The administration’s crafty argument, however, is aimed at defining the scope of executive authority, which might be a gamble because the court has not been sympathetic to Bush’s attempts to stretch presidential power.
A ruling will have implications in Hawaii, where the Navy’s permit for sonar exercises will expire in January. Until the court’s decision in its next term, the public has an opportunity to weigh in with the argument that training can be conducted effectively while reducing the risk of harm to animals in the sea.
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.
Hawai‘i federal district Judge David A. Ezra today found that the Navy is violating federal law and enjoined it from carrying out its Undersea Warfare Exercises in Hawai’i’s waters without adhering to additional mitigation measures to protect marine mammals. The Navy is also required to take a hard look at the impacts of its high-intensity, mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement.
Earthjustice, on behalf of Ocean Mammal Institute, Animal Welfare Institute, KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Surfrider Foundation’s Kaua’i Chapter, sued the Navy last May. Judge Ezra issued a preliminary injunction after finding the Navy was violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and was likely to cause harm if allowed to proceed without greater protections.
He noted the Navy’s harm threshold—173 decibels (dB)—contradicts the best available science, and “cast into serious doubt the Navy’s assertion that, despite over 60,000 potential exposures to MFA sonar, marine mammals will not be jeopardized.” The Court said further the Navy had failed to analyze reasonable alternatives to conducting its exercises in the manner it proposed, failed to notify and involve the public as required by law, and failed to take into account the potential for serious harm from an exceptionally controversial activity.
Learn more about the lawsuit and the impacts of high-intensity mid-frequency (MFA) sonar on Hawaii’s marine mammals.
I was going to use a clever subject line for this email — something like, “Show me the money!” because that’s what it comes down to now. We’re asking the State to pony up bucks to do this beach access survey and report. But a little earlier I got a phone call from someone in our group…
His mother passed away this morning and he wanted the phone number of another BAH member, because he needed help getting a canoe so he could scatter her ashes in the waters off the Mokulua islands. He said she loved Lanikai and Kailua Beach, and this is what she wanted.
Until I got involved with this cause, I didn’t know him or the paddler he wanted to get in touch with. I think it speaks volumes about what the beaches and ocean means to all who live in Hawaii. It connects us, and brings us together. You know those people who put up gates on “private” roads? Their world has gotten smaller, while our circle of friends is growing and getting bigger.
You can support the bill he’s talking about–HB839– by showing up to the hearing and/or emailing in your testimony to the finance committee. FINtestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov (contact Rich at figeli001@hawaii.rr.com if you need sample testimony to follow.)
From BAH: The meeting will be in Room 308 at the State Capitol building. HB839 is at the top of the agenda, so testimony will probably start around 11:15 am, and could continue for a half hour to an hour depending on how many people show up.
Amid the newspaper headlines shouting “SUCCESS” over the missile interception of a faltering US spy satellite in the “middle of the Pacific,” we received the following email from Greenpeace guys. They echoed our concerns about the potential of toxics and debris in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands:
(from Martini Gotjé, former crew of the GP vessel Rainbow Warrior)
Here are the coordinates of the maritime warning for this sat to be shoot down by Aegis
NAVAREA XII 52/2008(19,83). NORTH PACIFIC. HAWAII. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS 210230Z TO 210500Z FEB, ALTERNATE
220230Z TO 220500Z, 230230Z TO 230500Z, 240230Z TO 240500Z
AND 250230Z TO 250500Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
31-45N 170-12W, 28-24N 166-42W,
23-52N 163-17W, 19-09N 161-29W,
12-41N 161-29W, 12-39N 165-32W,
18-42N 170-57W, 20-31N 172-30W,
27-03N 172-06W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 250600Z FEB.
Note that the marine reserve in the NW Hawaiian Island is for a large part covered by this warning area
The toxic hydrazine what the military is talking about is then of no concern for US DoD to land in a reserve with threatened ocean life!!!!!!
See http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/e-305.htm for the real reason why they want to shoot it down. It’s all secret and new technology and they want to make sure that no one can lay their hands on any piece.
He rightly points out that what we’re really talking about is the impacts and implications of expanding militarization of places–of our oceans, of space.
“But even as debris from the shattered satellite began raining down over the Pacific Ocean, there were worries that the U.S. achievement might spur other nations to advance their own anti-satellite programs and turn outer space into a potential battlefield.”
General Cartwright said radar imagery indicated the SM-3 missile hit the satellite’s fuel tank and obliterated the toxic fuel.
“From the standpoint of ‘can I rule out that hazardous material will fall to the Earth?’, not at this point.
This is occurring in a year of Naval training range expansion, undersea warfare exercises, and expanded 2008 RIMPAC wargames. It is also the International Year of the Reef. We’re talking a lot this year about marine debris, overfishing, and ocean acidification and reef death from climate change and warming oceans. Important, for sure.
But can we in Hawaii–currently the most heavily militarized of the 50 states–really talk about healthy reefs and ocean protection without tackling the question of ever-expanding military activities in Hawaiian waters?
Whether we are actively consenting or not, the train is moving. To do nothing is to move with it. We have a limited amount of time to decide–and to act–on the appropriate and humane global uses of lands, ocean, air, and space. At KAHEA, this is another year of doing. We hope you’ll join us.
(map from John Hocevar, missile photo DoD, and monk seal photo credit: James Watt)
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
