Blog
News, updates, finds, stories, and tidbits from staff and community members at KAHEA. Got something to share? Email us at: kahea-alliance@hawaii.rr.com.
- 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.
- Participate in local clean-ups. Here’s one resource: http://www.adoptabeachhawaii.com/
- Reduce, reuse, recycle.
- Serve as an example to others.
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.
Today, decisions for the Monument are being made in the dark–and it shows. We continue to ask: open up the Monument to transparent, accountable decision making for this public trust. Hold public meetings of the Monument Management Board, where permitting decisions can be made in the light of day. Really, what is there to hide?
Admit it, we were right all along
From Marti:
We have commented on every permit issued and every plan released concerning Papahanaumokuakea because we want to see these public trust resources protected. At every hearing for five years, we have asked the co-managers to assess the cumulative impact of human activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
They punted on the monument management plan and fumbled on the science plan, but never stopped issuing precious permits for invasive, extractive (often federally funded) research in this visionary no-take-refuge. Not only that, they issued these permits with exemptions from all environmental review.
We think these exemptions are being issued improperly. This is the only critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals — you can’t just assume activities there will not affect their fragile, important environment. So we sued.
Now, a year later, we may finally be seeing some action — at least at the State level. Last week, nine permit applications for all kinds of research in the state’s NWHI marine refuge were deferred after the Land Board members conferred with a Deputy Attorney General in executive session. We have no idea what was said. But a special Land Board hearing just for these permit applications was announced for Monday April 19th.
What will the Land Board do? Continue to issue permits that are improperly exempted from all environmental review or finally require that a real, cumulative impact assessment is completed — one that is public and takes into consideration all of the horrible things human exploitation has done to this amazing, irreplaceable marine environment?
KAHEA Lawsuit Makes Headlines
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.
Draft Science Plan Public Hearing: Grandfathering-in Permitted Activities
From: Andrea
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
• E-mail: nwhicomments@noaa.gov.
To read the plan:
http://papahanaumokuakea.gov/research/plans/draft_natressciplan.pdf
(It takes a few minutes to download, but once you’re there, skip to page 10 for the prioritization chart.)
KAHEA SUES STATE TO PROTECT NWHI
KAHEA Suit Asks Court to Enforce Law On Permits
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.
KAHEA has decided enough is enough.
“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.”
32 Tons of Marine Litter Removed: Sadly, the Tip of the Iceberg
From: Andrea
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:
http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_Marine_Litter-A_Global_Challenge.pdf
“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?
Fishing in NWHI?
From Alana:
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.
