Blog

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 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.

The organization today filed suit against the department and division; the complaint asks the court to require the state agencies to comply with the law.

“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.”

From:  Andrea

Most people are familiar with our inalienable natural rights, as John Locke summed up as life, liberty, and property.  But what about nature’s right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve?

These are the inalienable legal rights that the town of Shapleigh, Maine, voted to grant to nature last February.  Now, in the town of Shapleigh, population 2,326, natural communities and ecosystems are endowed with these inalienable, fundamental rights, and any town resident has “standing” to bring a lawsuit on behalf of natural communities and ecoystems.

Read the Boston Globe article here:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/19/should_nature_be_able_to_take_you_to_court/?page=1

Shapleigh is on the right track.  While critics may argue there are too many potential litigants, ranging from the Kukui tree to the Waimea River, there exists an entire planet of species and ecosystems deserving of the right to exist.  And, sadly, counts of these potential litigants are diminishing.  See:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01296862.htm

The above article, published July 2, reports that more than 800 animal and plant species have gone extinct in the last five-hundred years, with almost 17,000 threatened with extinction now, according to a recent International Union for Conservation of Nature report.  The track record shows that we are failing at conservation.  Endowing nature with the right to exist may bolster our efforts at conserving biodiversity.

Apparent in many facets of our social structure, we have consistently valued profit above nature.  After all, corporations have long had the legal status of a “person” and the corresponding rights, including ability to sue.  If corporations are “persons” in the sense of legal status and rights, then what is the problem with nature possessing rights to exist?  Nature is fundamental to our own existence, quite unlike corporations.

We are behind the time in recognizing nature’s rights.  Notwithstanding the dire situation of lost biodiversity, concepts of an ethical relationship with nature have been around for at least 100 years.  Aldo Leopold, an early environmentalist, wrote about his “land ethic” in A Sand County Almanac.  Based on the idea that ethics should be expanded to encompass nonhuman members of the biotic community, Leopold summed up his land ethic as follows:  “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.  It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”  If we humans were on board with this profoundly simple land ethic- and had been during our last couple hundred years of pillaging-, then perhaps we would not be in the situation of having to pass town ordinances to grant nature the right to exist.

But, alas, so is human nature.  Our attempts at control have led us to a precarious precipice:  here, at the edge of continuing to diminish biodiversity, we have a choice.  The town of Shapleigh recognized this watershed moment and stepped in the direction of preservation.

If my town votes for a similar ordinance, you bet I’ll holler aye.  And, when critics question, “how do we know what nature wants?” and argue that the interest is actually ours, I’ll have my response.

Sure, we humans may be the ones instituting this groundbreaking regime of granting legal rights to biota.  But in reality, the idea of humans bringing these suits on behalf of nature is not so far-fetched.  After all, people serve as trustees to bring suits on behalf of incompetent people and trust beneficiaries.  Human implementation of nature’s rights is requisite:  the law is our system, and our impacts and attempts to control ecosystems thus far have led to the gross loss in biodiversity.

Humans- but not corporations- are a part of the planetary ecosystem.  We are not the operators behind an enormous control panel, like we have long been masquerading.  As a single species, we should make room in our legal and socioeconomic structures for the other species to survive, lest we deprive them all of their right to exist.

We should be celebrating and wholeheartedly codifying nature’s right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve.  Without nature, without Earth, homo sapiens would not exist.

Ho’okahi No Ka ‘Aina A Me Na Kanaka.

From Alana:

Last Friday there was a community aquaculture meeting at the UH Law School. It was fourth of four presentations given by Christina Lizzi (Food and Water Watch, DC), Rob Parsons (Food and Water Watch Coordinator, Maui), and Kale Gumapac (Kanaka Council). The other three meetings were on the Big Island and Maui. Only about 10 people showed up to the one on O’ahu (granted, it was on short notice, and had limited publicity), but a lot of concerns were raised, and was apparent that people are not only curious about these sci-fi fish farms, but they are also concerned.  The meetings were informative about aquaculture, and the risks that come with it anywhere it the world, and also had a very cultural focus on Hawai’i.

Some of the environmental and legal issues brought up in discussion:

What state entity should preside over aquaculture?

Kona Blue has been meeting with Monsanto, the GMO company, for GMO soy in feed. 

How can wild fish in feed be reduced, while also eliminating GMO protein substitutes, like soy?

Kona Blue has plans to genetically engineer a stronger type of kahala fish. Escapes of GMO fish, or GMO fed fish could lead to terrible repercussions in the wild. 

Who holds ultimate title to leased aquaculture areas? In reality it is ceded land, and leases could be contested. 

Kona Blue is not paying fair market value on leased area (only ~$14,000 per year)

All feed is imported, and its content is not released. It could have preservatives, antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, etc. 

Virtually all of ocean farmed fish would be exported from the islands. 

Permit requirements for onshore hatcheries? The impacts of the hatcheries may be as harmful as what happens in the ocean. 

Who would enforce buffer zones around larger ventures? DOCARE? Coast Guard?

Cultural issues brought up in discussion: 

Hukilau Foods, the company running the fish farm off of Ewa beach, takes advantage of the concept of the hukilau, which historically would benefit the entire ahupua’a by providing fish to everyone who helped. Hukilau Foods, however, exports the majority of their fish to the mainland. (Asking Hukilau Foods to share their bounty on harvest days would make a big statement)

Hawai’i open ocean aquaculture operations have a tendency to equate themselves with the loko i’a (native Hawaiian fish ponds). This is similar to comparing the TMT to native Hawaiian astronomy. It is fallacious, and the two could not be more different. The ancient fishponds were set up to be self-sustaining ecosystems. They were poly-culture systems that used barracuda, sea turtles, seaweed, predatory fish, and smaller fish like a checks and balances system. It did not have to constantly be monitored for disease, and the fish did not need to be fed. The ponds were also separate from the open ocean. 

In past generations the ocean was revered for its healing properties. Even when I was growing up I was taught to go in the ocean if I had a wound, but these days you are more likely to get staff infection than be healed. The ocean is changing, and not for the better. Adding an unknown amount of fish excrement to our waters could lead to a rise in “slime” which can lead to several health problems in humans. 

EIS’ fail to address most cultural concerns. How will sharks that are attracted to the cages be address? In 2005 Kona Blue killed a resident 16-foot tiger shark that many people felt was an ‘aumakua.

Obviously there are a lot of conflicting interests here regarding land and ocean use. We came to the conclusion that the best way to benefit our island community would be to use all the money that would have be given to aquaculture ventures, to instead  restore the loko i’a. If that happened, entire communities would reap the benefits, and not just a CEO and 20 employees of a company. Open ocean aquaculture has already proven itself to be a generally unprofitable business in Hawai’i– Kona Blue says it needs to expand or it will go out of business. Why not produce something locally, in a truly sustainable way, that would be for local people? The infrastructure for fishponds is already there, they just need a little makeover.

From Melissa:

The Army plans to continue on with training in Makua Valley even though over 50 species of endangered plants and animals are found in the valley, over 100 of archaeological features are present and there is much resistance from the local community.

Eight years after agreeing to do so, the Army yesterday completed an environmental examination of military training in Makua Valley by saying it wants to conduct up to 32 combined-arms live-fire exercises and 150 convoy live-fire exercises annually in the 4,190-acre Wai’anae Coast valley.

The “record of decision” by the Army scales back from the 50 combined arms and 200 convoy exercises the Army selected in June as a “preferred” alternative.

“This (Makua) environmental impact statement was a very thorough and publicly open process,” said Maj. Gen. Raymond V. Mason, commander of the Army in Hawai’i and the deciding official. “We’ve reached the best decision that allows our soldiers and small units to train locally and reduces their time away from families, all while ensuring the Army continues to protect the precious environment entrusted to us.”

To reduce the risk of range fires and threats to endangered species and cultural sites, the Army said it would not use tracer ammunition, TOW or Javelin missiles, anti-tank and 2.75-caliber rockets, or illumination rounds.

Additionally, the proposed use of added training lands at Ka’ena Point and what’s known as the “C-Ridge” in Makua are off the table, the Army said.

But Earthjustice attorney David Henkin, who has represented community group Malama Makua in a nearly nine-year lawsuit against the Army, said the level of training proposed still far exceeds anything conducted by the Army before 2004.

Under the terms of a 2001 settlement, live fire with helicopters, mortars, artillery and a company of about 150 soldiers was halted in 2004 because the Army hadn’t completed the agreed-upon environmental impact statement.

“This is a common trick, which is, let’s propose something totally horrendous … and then compromise with something that’s just awful, and people will be thankful, and that’s sort of the (Army’s) approach,” Henkin said of the Army’s record of decision issued yesterday.

Henkin said the Army proposes to do at Makua essentially the same training and use the types of weapons “that time and time again in the past have caused wildfires that have killed endangered species.”

To read the full article click here.

From Melissa-

Maui taro farmers need your help. Our beloved Haloa is once again under the threat of being generically modified, this time on Maui. The Maui County Council needs to hear from the public on this issue. Please voice your opinion (in Haloa’s favor of course) and let it be known to the council that you care about the purity of the kalo within the islands. Take a minute out of your day to contact the council and show your opposition to GM taro. Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta have been making their rounds, so pick up your phone and show them that Hawaii doesn’t back down on this issue.

Ask them to support Bill 09-100 and help protect taro from genetic modification.

Council members to contact:

Mike Molina (Haiku, Paia, Makawao)  270-5507
Gladys Baisa (Kula, Pukalani, Ulupalakua)  270-7939
Joe Pontanilla (Kahului) 270-5501
Jo Anne Johnson (West Maui) 270-5504
Danny Mateo (Molokai) 270-7678
Sol Kaho’ohalahala (Lanai) 270-7768
Bill Medeiros (East Maui) 270-7246
Wayne Nishiki (South Maui) 270-7108
Michael Victorino (Wailuku, Waihee, Waikapu) 270-7760

Councilmembers are expected to make a key decision in this process by July 16th, so please, please, please call them today.  Your phone call could help to extend the shield of protection for taro to one more county.

From: Stewart

If Waianae residents want to stop people from treating their community like a garbage dump, they shouldn’t expect much from the City and County of Honolulu or the State of Hawaii.  It took private citizens – namely a handful of KAHEA allies – to police the neighborhood and call attention to an illegal dump that appears to have been operating for years.

The latest reports of apparent illegal dumping in Waianae come less than a month after reports that Honolulu city workers had been dumping huge amounts of broken concrete in a stream in Waianae in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

According to Will Hoover’s report in The Honolulu Advertiser, the more recent discovery was prompted by Lucy Gay, director of Continuing Education & Training at Leeward Community College in Wai’anae.  Auntie Lucy, Hoover reported, learned about the landfill from a colleague who hiked the isolated area over the July Fourth weekend and stumbled across huge debris piles.  Auntie Lucy joined Auntie  Alice Greenwood  and investigated the site on their own and contacted Carroll Cox of EnviroWatch. The three returned on Thursday, along with students from Leeward Community College.

Although the dump found by Auntie Lucy and Auntie Alice appears to be illegal, the City and County of Honolulu seems intent on taking more formal action to make Waianae the official trash heap of Oahu.  Namely, the Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting is drafting a new development plan for Waianae that will serve as the basis for zoning decisions in the area, and it seems Mayor Hannemann wants to let a landowner rezone some agriculture land into industrial land to allow for a garbage dump.  The new plan will have to allow for this change.

The first battle will be before the City Council, which will need to approve the Mayor’s development plan.   As with the illegal dump, citizens are going to have to step up.   As recent history has shown, City Hall would just as well let Waianae get trashed.