State finally getting it right for Northwestern Hawaiian Islands... -ish.

Last week, the Board of Land and Natural Resources held a special meeting to consider several permit applications from HIMB researchers for activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Papahānaumokuākea.  After several years of public testimony at every permit hearing — and even finally, a lawsuit! – the Land Board and its staff finally admitted: a cumulative impact assessment IS needed to understand the affects of harmful human activity on this extremely fragile place BEFORE permits are issued to allow prohibited activities.  Hallelujah!

Unfortunately, knowing you were wrong and getting it right are not the same thing.

At the meeting, staff gave a very technical presentation about past permitted activities, how they are documented, and what the likely affects are.  Then representatives from the applicants — Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) — testified to studies they have conducted on themselves to assess the impact they are (not) having on the environment.  These are good and noble acts that should be continued, but do not get at the heart of the issue over the issuance of permits for taking species, dumping waste water, anchoring, constructing, and dredging activities in the largest NO-TAKE marine reserve in Hawai’i. These activities have the potential to harm the very thing that is trying to be studied (and ostensibly saved).  Yet? Still no cumulative impact assessment. Still no environmental assessment.

The researchers and the staff obviously have some information about the impacts of human activities in the NWHI.  Why not put that together into an environmental impact statement and release it for public comment?

Permits are required because the activities requested are prohibited. Permission is to be given for prohibited activities when they are necessary for conservation, management and cultural perpetuation. This is at the heart of a “permit” system.

The issue: We are supposed to have a public process to evaluate what activities are really needed, and balance them against the cumulative impacts. How can we do this without the legally required environmental assessment (EA)? Or for that matter, without a public process?

All the while granting of permits continues to be driven by availability of grant/Federal dollars, rather than the actual need for the activity.