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.

You can also watch the hearings on `Olelo Channel 52.

You can support by submitting your own written comments, signing our petition, and spreading the word. Mahalo piha to the thousands who have already supported the call for a better plan!

From his commentary in the Honolulu Advertiser:

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

You can support by submitting your own written comments, signing our petition, and spreading the word. Mahalo piha to the thousands who have already supported the call for a better plan!

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.

7/3/08 Thu 1:00 pm
7/10/08 Wed Midnight
7/17/08 Wed Midnight
7/24/08 Thu 1:00 pm

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.

KAHEA, along with the Center for Biological Diversity and the Ocean Conservancy, filed a formal petition yesterday, seeking to have beaches and surrounding waters on the main Hawaiian islands designated as critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals under the Endangered Species Act.

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.

(graphic from abcnews.com)

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.

From Op-Ed in today’s New York Times:

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 Marti:

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 at in 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.

On June 13, the Hawai`i Board of Land and Natural Resources quietly denied the permit of HIMB disease researcher Greta Aeby, in the closing chapter of a historic enforcement action for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Aeby was reported in 2006 by fellow researchers to be transporting potentially diseased coral shipboard in an open-flow system–a clear violation of her research permit.

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.

From our friends at the Trust for Public Land, an opportunity to participate in efforts to protect forever some of the last wild shoreline on Oahu’s North Shore. KAHEA continues to support the efforts of TPL and others, as a member of the Ko’olauloa-North Shore Alliance. We are one of a broad network of community and non-profit groups joining their voices and efforts together to protect this shoreline forever:

On the North Shore of O’ahu, the scenic property surrounding the secluded Turtle Bay Resort includes over 850 acres along the coast and 400+ acres mauka (mountain side) of the highway. The undeveloped areas feature some of O’ahu’s last slice of “country” — wild coastal beaches, surfing breaks, dramatic landscapes, traditional fishing areas, threatened green sea turtle and endangered monk seal habitat, small local agricultural lots, and Hawaiian ancestral burial grounds. The area is a natural treasure valued by residents and visitors alike as a rural refuge. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to save this slice of the real Hawai’i for today and future generations.

For more information, check out www.tpl.org/turtlebay

Kuilima Resort Company (KRC) and its parent company Los Angeles- based Oaktree Capital Management are pressing forward with plans to expand the footprint of the resort by building five new hotels and additional condominiums, adding over 3500 units (2,500 hotel rooms and 1,000 condos). The project has sparked broad concern from community, business, and governmental leaders.

However, the owner’s own financial difficulties and the recent downturn of U.S. financial markets has produced a “green lining.” Beginning last year, KRC failed to pay its creditors, resulting in a foreclosure lawsuit filed by Credit Suisse, representing dozens of U.S. and foreign lenders. Debt for the resort is currently being traded at a fraction of its face value.

In her January 2008 State of the State address, Hawai’i Governor Linda Lingle announced a bold initiative to acquire the property for the public, stating:

“(W)e can’t speculate or sell ourselves into prosperity, but I do believe we have an opportunity to purchase a piece of our future. I am proposing that we buy the 850-acre Turtle Bay property on O’ahu’s North Shore.”

The Trust for Public Land is part of a community, government, private working group formed by Governor Lingle to explore creative ways of financing such a purchase, and to form public-private partnerships to protect the property. More information on the Governor’s initiative including updates on the progress of her advisory working group is available.

The goal of the working group is to negotiate a voluntary conservation sale and acquisition, plan for the enhancement and long-term financial stability of the existing resort, seek innovative ways to create high-quality jobs with low environmental impact, and create a sustainable future for the North Shore. The Trust for Public Land is also part of the Ko’olauloa North Shore Alliance, a network of community and non-profit organizations supporting the initiative to protect this country “forever.”

You can help. Your donations and ideas are welcome. Please donate now to provide essential financial support to the acquisition initiative — and feel free to contact the Governor’s Advisory Working Group at TurtleBayAWG@gmail.com to contribute your ideas.

(photo from Keep the North Shore Country)

We are still sorting it all out over here. And while it is a shock, it is not really a surprise…Molokai Ranch’s true colors have finally been shown. They have played the “employee card”: they couldn’t shove their unwanted development down the throat of this community, so now they will take it out on their own workers, while blaming the development opposition for the “need” to do this.

Indeed, the Ranch states in their press release: “Unacceptable delays caused by continued opposition to every aspect of the Master Plan means we are unable to fund continued normal company operations.” But this is so not true. The community did not object to “every aspect” of the Plan; the community objected to the La‘au development aspect of the Plan. We have been consistent from the start in saying the there are many good parts of the Plan (and the community put a lot of work into creating those parts), but that developing La‘au is unacceptable to the large majority of this community.

We have also been consistent in saying to Molokai Ranch and Plan supporters, lets all come back to the table and find solutions to this issue: let’s find real alternatives to this development, and other types of economic engines besides development. They chose not to listen, and to to try to ram-rod their project through. Wrong idea. And now they are bringing their oft promised/threatened “doomsday scenario” down on this community – by laying off their workers and starting to sell-off their lands. What a mean-spirited and cruel reaction to not getting their way (‘I’m taking my ball and going home!”) They have already sold half of Na’iwa (the ancient makahiki grounds) and Ka’ana (the birthplace of hula) looks to be next…

But let’s be clear here: all the “delays” were caused by Molokai Ranch’s own decisions: by making this whole thing into an “all or nothing” “take it or leave it” thing (either take/accept the Plan with La‘au development, or no Plan); by choosing not to listen to this community saying ‘”A’ole La‘au” (No to la‘au!); and by voluntarily withdrawing their shoddy EIS after massive community and LUC opposition to it, (and thus having to return to a draft EIS stage). They were also seriously “delayed”/affected by two recent Supreme Court Decisions – one that took away their allocation of potable water, and the other that neutralized their preferred method of transporting it. (But I don’t hear them blaming the Supreme Court!)

The sentiment in the community is that we feel deeply for the workers who have lost their jobs, and we will support them in whatever ways we can: by trying to find them new jobs, or by creating new jobs with better economic engines, and by helping to provide food during this time. Molokai takes care of her own.

But also, we see this as a great opportunity to bring stewardship of this island back to the people of Molokai. We were already working on various solutions before this happened: from investors with more appropriate endeavors, to the UPC windfarm, to conservation buyers, to buying the Ranch, to a combination of all of the above. Now we are going to push to bring those kinds of things to pass if we can.

It was a historic day yesterday, but now, with your help and continued support, we might truly be able to make history. This island has a chance to have economic, energy, and food independence – a truly sustainable and self-sufficient community. A hub of sustainable agriculture, environmental stewardship, Hawaiian culture and aloha. We can Ho’i i ka Pono! We can truly Keep Moloka’i, Moloka’i!

(first photo from rmayda on flickr, second from Paula Kawal.)

Links to articles:

Molokai Ranch Shutting Down (MPL Press Release)
http://www.themolokaidispatch.com/node/1837

“Doomsday” Has Arrived (Molokai Dispatch)
http://www.themolokaidispatch.com/node/1851

Mayor Tavares And Molokai Council Member Mateo Respond To Ranch Closure (Molokai Dispatch)
http://www.themolokaidispatch.com/node/1841

Lingle Focuses On Molokai Ranch Employees, Island’s Economy (Molokai Dispatch)
http://www.themolokaidispatch.com/node/1840

Molokai Ranch Shuts Down (Molokai Times Article and community and reader’s comments)
http://www.molokaitimes.com/articles/8324115936.asp

Molokai Ranch to quit island (Honolulu Star Bulletin Article)
Stung by rejection of its planned luxury project, the owner will lay off 120 staffers and seal off the land…”
http://starbulletin.com/2008/03/25/news/story01.html

Molokai Ranch to close, lay off 120 (Honolulu Advertiser Article)
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/NEWS01/803250367

From Marion:

Last week, KAHEA submitted written testimony to the State Land Use Commission in opposition to “the proposal by Molokai Properties Limited to build 200 luxury estates at La’au Point” which will negatively impact the environment and culture.

Our comments point out that: although there is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting that the main Hawaiian Islands serve as foraging and breeding grounds for monk seals and millions of dollars for research and monitoring have been set aside, little has been done by the state and federal governments to permanently protect habitat — like that La’au point. The truth is that the single most important action we can take to save monk seals is provide them places of permanent pu`uhonua, true and forever sanctuaries. Monk seals survive best when left alone in a place where humans do not dominate the landscape, in sanctuaries marked only by the presence of blowing sands and waves crashing against jagged lava formations at the water’s edge.

Further, because “Molokai is one of a few communities that still have resources to sustain traditional subsistence”, they need to be honored and protected to ensure the perpetuation of these traditional practices of gathering for their families and communities. The reason why these practices still remain today have to do primarily with the fact this shoreline is undeveloped and difficult to access.

The proposed development will limit access to this 5-mile stretch of coastline by providing only two points of entry, one at each end of the proposed coastline development even though the “state law requires that public access to the shoreline be available every quarter mile” which is clearly not honored in this proposal.

The Molokai community has voiced their undying concern regarding the relentless and greedy development plans of Molokai Properties Limited. The community has no interest in having a community split and culturally and socially restricted by the influx of big money. Today, they are standing up, protecting their inherent rights to collect what they need from the mountains to the oceans that keeps their culture alive.

To make this place no more than a picture postcard tropical beach destination is to strip it of its most fundamental and uniquely Hawaiian identity. We stand together with communities on Molokai to share the view that the sea, land, culture, and people remain vital in marking this land as a Hawaiian place.

Click here to read comments on the EIS:

KAHEA’s comments in opposition to the development at La’au Point

Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Comments on the development La’au Point

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.

You can see the full letter at: http://starbulletin.com/2008/03/02/editorial/commentary.html

From Marti:

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.