Editorial

Integrated Coastal Management Starts With an Integrated Coastal Study

Integrated coastal management. It’s not a term that rolls off the tongue with ease yet, nor has it become embedded in the public’s consciousness to any significant extent.

But what integrated coastal management means should be clear to any reasonable, thinking person. Simply put, it is the idea that the management of coastal resources — water quality, aquatic life, aesthetic values, and the like — involves a whole slew of factors. Making them all point in the same direction, head toward the same goals, is the first step. Making sure that bringing one factor under control doesn’t cause another to go ballistic is the second and certainly the more difficult.

For four years the Mamala Bay Study Commission has labored to bring forth an enormous compendium of reports on the state of the bay that could serve as a basis for integrated coastal management of resources extending from Diamond Head to Barber’s Point. The reports vary widely. Some involve sophisticated computer modeling that cries out for on-the-ground verification. The most extreme example of this is the assessment of risk to swimmers from exposure to water-borne pathogens at Waikiki. Others, such as those of some of the University of Hawai`i researchers, many of whom have other contracts with the City and County of Honolulu, are far more argumentative in their tone than one might expect in peer-reviewed work.

Not to Worry?

As helpful as some of the individual studies may be, the overall report is disappointing. It lacks internal consistency. Researchers on various projects went about their work in ways that at times was in conflict with assumptions or conclusions of other studies. As a result, the study as it now stands can be all things to all people. Those wanting to regard it as a clean bill of health for the ever-worsening treatment accorded wastewater at the city’s Honouliuli and Sand Island plants can find plenty of studies to back up their claims. Those arguing that the primary-treated effluent plume poses a health risk to swimmers on the city’s most popular beaches have ample ammunition, too.

A prerequisite for integrated coastal management is an integrated understanding of the problem it is intended to address, whether it be described as a deterioration of water quality at popular recreational sites, an unwelcome alteration in the make-up of near-shore aquatic life, or a decline in the quality or quantity of fish and limu taken by subsistence gatherers. Without a coherent framing of the problem — or problems — of Mamala Bay, it is simply not possible that the work of the study commission will provide the ground for consensus on selecting management options to mitigate those problems.

Yet all the parties who concurred in the study commission’s formation five years ago had embraced just such hope.

Peer review is a process that scientists use to evaluate the quality and merit of their research. It now appears likely that the entire Mamala Bay Study Commission Draft Report will be subjected to peer review, as well as public review, before the report is made final. In all probability, that will not resolve the disparity among the various elements in the report, much of which seems to derive from the fact that scientific experts in one specialized area may have little in common with experts in another — and, indeed, may be at a loss to explain how results of research in one area might have a bearing on the work of scientists in yet another field.

The study commission has produced vast quantities of data, no doubt about that. But whether the fruit of its labor is worth the $9 million spent — or even the not inconsequential cost of the paper on which it has been printed — will be history’s to judge. For now, the jury’s still out.

* * *
Richards Should Disclose — Now

Monty Richards was appointed more than two months ago to sit on the state Commission on Water Resource Management. And while he wasted no time taking his seat, he is taking all the time in the world to provide the state Ethics Commission with the financial disclosure report required of all members of state boards and commissions.

Ethics Commission records, including disclosure statements, are not public. However, Ethics Commission members can review disclosure statements to make an independent determination of possible conflict. Without the disclosure statement, though, there can be no Ethics review.

Environment Hawai`i has been able to gather on its own public records suggesting Richards may have conflicts significant enough to prevent him from serving as a disinterested judge in the Waiahole case. He should not sit on the commission one more day without providing the contestants with a voluntary statement of no conflict, as the Waiahole parties have requested. Nor should he vote on any other Water Commission case until he has provided the Ethics Commission with a complete and signed financial report form.

* * *
Two Who Made A Difference

Two and a half years ago, Ed Johnston of Hilo spoke up at a Land Board hearing, requesting a contested case on a permit sought by the Hawai`i Tropical Botanical Garden. Thus began what became for him nearly a full-time occupation that ended, or at least abated, only last October.
The Land Board eventually denied Johnston his contested case request. Nevertheless, in bringing it, Johnston, a former employee of the garden who knew its weaknesses, succeeded in bringing to the attention of the DLNR staff, the Land Board, and the public at large Conservation District violations and other practices of the garden that call into question the intention and interest of its founder, Dan Lutkenhouse, in complying not only with Conservation District rules, but also with those of the Corps of Engineers, the Commission on Water Resource Management, and the County of Hawai`i Special Management Area ordinance.

In October, the Land Board approved a mediated settlement that restored to the public shoreline access rights that it had been denied for more than a decade. In addition, it appears as though the Land Board may reclaim state lands that it never would have known belonged to the state, absent Johnston’s activities. For all this, and much more that is known only to Ed and his long-suffering wife, Helen Rogers, the people of Hawai`i are indebted.

Ed Johnston’s work is outside government. Sallie Edmunds’ was within it. Edmunds was the spark behind years of work culminating in the state Water Commission approving for public hearing draft rules intended to give greater protection to streams in Hawai`i. Edmunds helped prepare the Hawai`i Stream Assessment published by the state in 1990. She went on to work for the Office of State Planning, where she helped develop the idea of stream corridors as a consideration in the state boundary review process, and later toiled for the Water Commission.

Edmunds supplied most of the staff support for the state Stream Protection and Management Task Force, and after it had completed its hearings and report, she continued to devote many long days to preparing the stream protection rules. As we report in this issue, last month the Water Commission approved those rules for public hearing.

When the hearings occur, and when the rules are amended and signed, Edmunds will not be present. In mid-November, she moved to the West Coast. We wish her well in her new life, and offer our profound thanks for her long labors of love on behalf of Hawai`i’s streams.

* * *
Thanksgiving

We continue to be humbled and gratified by the generous response of readers to our fund-raising request. Recent contributors include:

Robert Akamine; Alia Point `Awa Nursery; Denise Antolini; Les and Sandy Bailey; Bay Pacific Consulting; Thomas Bearden; Beryl and Gary Blaich; Ken Carlson; Linda Chandler; Henry Clark; Sheila Conant; Gavan Daws; Dorothy Doudna; the Dowling Company, Inc; and Barbara Sunderland Duran;

Anne Earhart; Karen Eoff; Mollie Foti; Karen Freeman and Steve Knowlton; Michael Frome; Chuck Giuli; Ulla Hasager; Hawai`i Forest & Trail; David D. Higgins; Kevin Holman; Virginia Isbell; Annette Kaohelauli`i; Christine Kobayashi and John McComas; and Doug Lamerson;

Holly McEldowney; Dorothy and Thomas McMillan; Cora Majek; Michelle Matson; Creighton and Cathy Mattoon; John Miller; Justus Muller; and Peter Nakamura;

Richard Palmer; Robert Pyle; Ira Rohter; Jonathan Scheuer; Mrs. Tom Shields; Constance Simmons-Kail; Joseph Singer; Barry Stokes; Mary Rose Teves; the Tex Drive-In; Phyllis Turnbull; Marion N. Vaught; Leah and Jack Wheeler; Judy Williams; Tom Wright; and Christopher Yuen.

Volume 6, Number 6 December 1995