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.
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.”
Natural Rights: Not Ours, But Nature's
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:
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.
Got Input for the Army on its Environmental Investigations? Apply by August 14!
From: Andrea
U.S. Army Garrison-Hawaii is soliciting community interest in creating a Restoration Advisory Board as part of the Military Munitions Response Program for two sites near the U.S. Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area. The motivation for the Restoration Advisory Board is to enable community participation in environmental issues on previously used military training sites.
Currently, the focus of the Restoration Advisory Board would be the remedial investigation of two response sites: the closed Humuula Sheep Station and the Kulani Boys’ Home.
The Board will be formed if enough community interest is expressed. The Board would be composed of community members, government representatives, and other stakeholders. The Board members would attend meetings and review and comment on plans and reports related to the investigation.
For more information or to request an application, contact:
Environmental Divison
MMRP Program Manager
Director of Public Works, USAG-HI
948 Santos Dumont Ave.
Building 105, 3rd Floor, WAAF
Schofield Barracks, HI 96857
Phone: 808-656-3109
Fax: 808-656-1039
*Applications must be postmarked or emailed by August 14!
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?
Arguments supporting telescope are fallacies
From Alana:
The following letter to the editor, published in The Maui News newspaper, plainly shows that the logic UH uses to defend its proposed telescope is very flawed.
A fallacious argument is made that because Hawaiians revered astronomy, then anything done in the 21st century with respect to astronomy is automatically consistent with Hawaiian spirituality. It’s like saying because Hawaiians revere kalo and because a company wants to genetically modify kalo they’re actually not at cross purposes – they both have proper respect for kalo, they’re just looking at it differently. That logic is unacceptable!
It is also unacceptable logic that infers that during the 19th century period of Hawaiian monarchy, Kalakaua introduced telescopes to Hawaii and he would be – and we should be – in favor of the ATST. Well, Kalakaua also introduced electricity to Hawaii. Shouldn’t we, by the same logic, light up Maui – or at least the top of Haleakala – at night with electric lights? Of course not!
For Kiope Raymond’s entire analysis click here.
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.
