Group News: Hawaiʻi Island, Maui
Hawaiʻi Island Group
BLNR Vote May Allow Taking of Hawaiʻi’s Coral Reef Fish for Global Aquarium Trade
By Chuck Flaherty | Reading time: 4 minutes
BLNR Vote May Allow Taking of Hawaiʻi’s Coral Reef Fish for Global Aquarium Trade
At its June 25th meeting, the Board of Land and Natural Resources considered a Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement submitted by the national Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. The Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) had previously rejected the applicant’s Final Environmental Impact Statement in May 2020 by a unanimous vote, giving fourteen facts and reasons.
At the June 25th meeting, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) and the state Division of Aquatic Resources argued the Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement (RFEIS) adequately addressed all 14 of the BLNR’s prior reasons for rejections as well as comments subsequently submitted by the public. The RFEIS lists a “preferred action” to allow seven permit holders to collect wild coral reef fish from the West Hawaiʻi Regional Fishery Management Area within the Class AA pristine nearshore marine waters along the leeward coast of Hawaiʻi Island and no other areas of the state.
There was extensive oral and written public testimony presented by numerous scientists, Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners, and environmental and Native Hawaiian organizations, including the Sierra Club. This testimony provided exhaustive detailed facts showing that the RFEIS continued to be inadequate, still did not comply with the Hawaiʻi Environmental Policy Act, and had not adequately addressed public comments.
Despite this testimony, three BLNR members changed their votes deferring to the representations made by the applicant and the Division of Aquatic Resources, despite the fact the division admitted “some of the comments probably could have been addressed a little more thoroughly [by the applicant]”. The division also referred to applicant’s RFEIS as “our RFEIS” which raised questions as to whether or not the agency had lost its objectivity somewhere in the process.
With one Board member absent, this resulted in a 3-3 “no decision” tie vote. The Hawaiʻi state environmental review law dictates that the RFEIS will be automatically deemed as accepted after 30 days, July 8th in this instance.
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court has previously ruled that, under the Public Trust Doctrine, the state has an affirmative duty to “take the initiative in considering, protecting, and advancing public rights in [trust resources] at every stage of the planning and decision-making process.” (Kelly v Oceanside 1250 Partners). In addition, the court along with the state legislature have taken the position that the “precautionary principle” should be applied when there are present or potential threats of serious damage to constitutionally-protected public trust resources, which include environmental resources and traditional and customary Hawaiian rights and practices. Where uncertainty exists, it is the state’s duty (the DAR, DLNR, and BLNR in this instance) to perform as a public trustee. This duty requires a presumption in favor of public resource protection.
It has ruled an applicant bears the burden of proof that their proposed activity does not result in harm or loss to the public trust. Public testifiers argued the RFEIS did not meet this burden of proof. Nevertheless, the three BLNR members justified their change of votes by saying the RFEIS enabled “a reasoned decision” by them.
The focus of attention and the issue of the adequacy of the RFEIS now goes to the state Environmental Court. It ruled in 2020 that the DLNR’s issuance of commercial licenses for aquarium fish collection was invalid and illegal for failure to comply with the state environmental review law. This effectively halted the taking of wild coral reef fish in our state. Willie Kaupiko, Ka‘imi Kaupiko, Mike Nakachi, For the Fishes, and the Center for Biological Diversity, are represented by Earthjustice in the lawsuit.
Should the court rule that the DLNR has complied with the environmental review law, then public interests defending the coral reef environment, Hawaiian rights and traditional and customary practices will be focused on any permit applications that may be submitted to the DLNR to begin the taking of wild immature fish from Hawaiʻi’s coral reefs for the global aquarium fish industry.
Regardless of the state constitution and prior Supreme Court precedents, it is clear beyond doubt that climate change is causing ocean warming and acidification. Both of these factors are rapidly undermining the ability of coral reefs, the rainforests of the ocean, to remain healthy. Coral reef fish are not only essential to the growth and health of coral reefs by keeping algae from covering coral polyps and allowing coral recruits to settle, but are also essential to the health of open ocean fish, sea turtles, and other marine animals by serving as “cleaning station attendants”.
The Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi and other public interests will continue to oppose the national Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and global aquarium fish industry’s attempts to take millions of coral reef fish from our state’s endangered coral reefs. It is time for state agencies to begin to openly acknowledge the possibility that the Earth is on the verge of entering a great extinction event caused by human activity. Now is the time to begin strict enforcement of the existing environmental protection laws and adherence to the precautionary principle to protect and preserve our state’s endangered ecosystems.
Honua Ola: Inconvenient Truths
By Cory Harden | Reading time: 2 minutes
What’s wrong with ongoing efforts by State legislators to sway the Hawaiʻi Public Utilities Commission to approve Honua Ola (previously known as Hu Honua), the tree-burning power plant in Pepeʻeko?
Plenty. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is mandated by the Ratepayer Protection Act to keep utility bills low by analyzing options and making informed decisions. If it doesn’t, consumer advocates are likely to appeal its decisions, and to prevail in court. And if legislators pressure agencies to favor special interests over the public interest, those legislators are at legal risk.
Sierra Club has recently obtained an extremely misleading Honua Ola brochure apparently meant for legislators.
The brochure claims Honua Ola’s higher prices are worth it because it provides “firm power” or “always-on electricity”. The proposed price for solar with battery storage is 8 cents per kilowatt hour, versus over 22 cents for Honua Ola. Honua Ola wants the PUC to grant a waiver from competitive bidding to allow the higher prices.
But the brochure fails to mention that Honua Ola must shut down for maintenance for two weeks once a year--and four weeks every fifth year. “Always on”?
However, with solar, you can do maintenance on a few panels or batteries at a time, while the others keep generating power. And with advances in battery storage, solar can provide power for longer periods when the sun doesn’t shine. In addition, solar plants with battery storage can ramp up to meet extra demand in fractions of a second. Honua Ola would need much more time, making it difficult to smooth out power fluctuations.
The brochure claims Honua Ola will be carbon neutral or negative, but the PUC has not yet held an evidentiary hearing to evaluate the science on the plant’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The brochure claims 71% of Hawaiʻi Island residents support Honua Ola. But the survey question compared pollution from Honua Ola to fossil fuel plants, not the solar and wind plants now coming online.
The brochure says the cost of the Kapolei, Oʻahu stand-alone battery will be 30 to 50 cents per kilowatt hour—but fails to mention this is temporary and due to use of fossil fuel for charging, That, in turn, is due to HECO foot dragging.
An efficient power plant would not end up with energy lost in leftover heated water. But Honua Ola will end up pumping 5,000 gallons a minute of leftover heated water into injection wells. And no wells are yet approved. Heated water migrating from injection wells into the nearby ocean could harm ocean life, but Honua Ola is trying to avoid doing an Environmental Impact Statement.
On top of all that, Honua Ola is locked in a court battle in California with its controlling investor, and is unlikely to win—another inconvenient truth left out of the brochure.
Maui Group
Luxury Maui Development Challenged to Address Impacts to Natural and Cultural Resources
By Lucienne de Naie | Reading time: 2 minutes
Moku boundary wall descends a steep slope. It will be destroyed to make way for dozens of high-end second homes with swimming pools in the arid lands of Wailea.
Maui Group and allies recently challenged the Final Environmental Assessment for a “lushly landscaped” gated community on the dry slopes of Wailea Resort. The steep 23-acre parcel is planned for 57 luxury homes, each with a space for its own swimming pool and a guest unit.
“I can’t understand how the County decided that this project has no impacts to our water resources,” said Maui Group ExCom member Clare Apana, who lives in Wailuku where the proposed project’s water will come from. “Wailuku residents have been on water restrictions many times during the past few years. How can there be extra water to send to second homes with swimming pools in the driest part of Maui?
Maui Group allies, Hoʻoponopono O Makena (HOM), share those water concerns as well as the impacts to Hawaiian cultural sites on the land. Documented historic features include a wall and other possible sites marking a traditional moku (district) boundary, but many prominent Hawaiian features are not included in the project’s archaeological report. HOM board member, Carol Lee Kamekona, a descendant of the Paeahu ahupuaʻa, where the project is located, has visited the traditional Hawaiian sites on the land. She points to the steep slopes, two deep gulches that run on each side of the 23-acre site, and the pipes that lead to the ocean. “Those pipes lead to our legendary akule fishing grounds,” she offers. “The EA doesn’t even admit that the run-off to the ocean could be a problem,” she observed.
Impacts to prominent mountain and ocean views from the Wailea parcel are ignored in the project's Environmental Assessment.
Kamekona was shocked to read the Final EA and learn that not one Hawaiian feature would be preserved, but instead, a “cultural garden” would be created at the project entrance where Hawaiians could supposedly gather native plants. “Many cultural and historical sites on this ‘āina, are not even listed on any archaeological reports,” Kamekona explained. “They cannot be “replaced” by a “cultural garden” as proposed in the Final EA. This project has unresolved impacts. We need to do better for our ʻāina and our lāhui,” said Kamekona.
Longtime Maui Group allies, Maui Tomorrow Foundation, are also part of the legal challenge. They point out that the 23-acre sites is just one of seven Wailea properties proposed for luxury gated neighborhoods by the Canadian-based Ledcor development company. “This project is part of a much larger plan that will result in over 600 new luxury units,” said Maui Tomorrow President Mike Williams. “That’s over 600 new water meters, 1,200 new toilets, hundreds of new swimming pools and lots more traffic. There needs to be a full EIS done.”
Donations for legal expenses for this historic case can be made via check to the Sierra Club Foundation, memo: Maui Group. Checks can be mailed to P.O. Box 791180, Pā'ia, HI 96779.