Controversy Flares Over Proposal to Control Waiawi with Scale Insect<\/b><\/p>\n
The proposed release of a scale insect to control strawberry guava, or waiawi (Psidium cattleianum)<\/i>, has sparked an outcry of opposition among some sectors of the public. Yet, although the opposition means a delay in the scheduled release, the scientists most closely involved with the project say they welcome the development as an opportunity to educate the public about what they do and the ways in which their plan can work to the state\u2019s benefit.<\/p>\n
\tA draft environmental assessment for the release was published last March. At the time, all signs pointed to an uneventful conclusion to the last step in the regulatory process and, with a state Department of Agriculture permit already in hand, scientists with the U.S. Forest Service were moving forward with plans for field release of the insect, Tectococcus ovatus<\/i>. The initial release was proposed for the state-owned Ola`a Forest Reserve on the Big Island.<\/p>\n
\tPublic interest in the project had been minimal, even though daily newspapers across the state had provided articles on the proposed release over the last three years, as the Forest Service scientists progressed through various state regulatory hurdles. At publicly noticed hearings in 2006 held by the state DOA on the rule changes needed to permit the import of T. ovatus, only a handful of people attended. On April 30, 2008, the state Board of Agriculture approved the permit that the Forest Service needed to import the insect. With the public comment period on the draft EA set to close May 23, everything seemed set.<\/p>\n
\tAnd then, on Sunday, May 18, the Hawai`i Tribune-Herald<\/i> published a paid display ad. \u201cUrgent! Help Save the Guava\u201d the top line screamed. \u201cOppose Plan to Release Alien Insect to Kill Strawberry Guava (Waiwi)\u201d [sic]. The ad featured before-and-after photos showing the damage T. ovatus can do to strawberry guava leaves, and then let readers know that the Forest Service would be releasing \u201can ALIEN INSECT PEST that causes galls on the guava plant, stopping its fruit production. THIS IS A STATEWIDE PLAN WHICH WILL START IN PUNA THIS SUMMER, UNLESS WE STOP IT NOW!\u201d Readers were urged to get their comments in by May 23 to the Forest Service. The sponsor of the ad was identified as \u201cSave the Guava,\u201d a campaign of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc.<\/p>\n
\tThe next day, the Tribune-Herald<\/i> carried a front-page article on the planned introduction of the insect. Sydney Ross Singer of Pahoa, the president of the Good Shepherd Foundation, was described as a \u201cconservation biologist\u201d by reporter John Burnett, who quoted Singer at length (although he did not link Singer to the ad). \u201cI think it needs to be controlled,\u201d Singer was quoted as saying, \u201cbut \u2026 we don\u2019t want to make it so nobody can enjoy guavas.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tRepresentative Clift Tsuji, chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, received so many calls about the proposal in the wake of Singer\u2019s ad that he organized an informational meeting, held in a packed lecture hall at the University of Hawai`i-Hilo on June 5.<\/p>\n
A Walk-Out<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Before the meeting began, Singer distributed handouts to people filing into the auditorium. \u201cThe government is planning to attack our strawberry guava by releasing an alien insect pest that will severely damage the leaves and stop the tree from making fruit,\u201d the flyer said. It urged people to press Tsuji to allow half the allotted time for \u201copposing viewpoints and information\u2026 After all, this is not only about the forests. It is also about our right to use and enjoy strawberry guava on our private property and in the wild\u2026. Help save our free, wild foods! Help stock this attack on property rights! Help save the environment from these \u2018environmentalists\u2019. Hawai`i needs food, not bugs.\u201d<\/p>\n
\t(On the website of the Good Shepherd Foundation \u2013 goodshepherdfoundation.org \u2013 Singer states that the group has begun to work \u201con the problems relating to so-called \u2018invasive species\u2019 and the hazards to the environment, humans, and non-target animals and plants associated with attempts to eradicate and control these populations,\u201d which efforts Singer has described as \u201cinvasive species hysteria.\u201d)<\/p>\n
\tBut Tsuji was not moved. When the meeting started, he explained the ground rules: For the first hour, there would be presentations by a panel of scientists from government agencies, plus one presentation by Derek Kurisu, of KTA Superstores, on the economic value of strawberry guava. After that, Tsuji would read questions submitted by members of the audience and give the panelists the opportunity to respond.<\/p>\n
\tSinger objected loudly from the audience. Tsuji reminded him that this was not a meeting where testimony would be allowed. After several more outbursts from Singer, Tsuji warned him that if there were another, he would call security and have Singer removed from the hall. Eighty minutes into the meeting, after most of the scientists had made their presentation, Singer again objected to the meeting format. \u201cThe public needs to comment,\u201d he yelled. Tsuji asked for security to be called. Singer then got up to leave, and urged others in the audience to follow: \u201cPeople, you should leave. This is a fraud,\u201d he said. Around half a dozen people followed him to the exit.<\/p>\n
\tBy and large, however, the audience was curious, polite, and attentive. One by one, the scientists addressed issues such as host specificity, the threat of waiawi to native forests, the economic and ecological damages inflicted by the plant, and the difficulty of controlling a species whose population can grow in Hawaiian forests at a rate of 14 percent a year.<\/p>\n
\tJulie Denslow, a recently retired research professor with the Forest Service, noted that strawberry guava affects nearly 80,000 acres of agriculture land. \u201cStrawberry guava fruit provides a food source for a variety of fruit flies, which have a severe impact on soft fruit agriculture in Hawai`i,\u201d she noted. \u201cFruit flies depress the quality and yield of papaya. For papaya alone, fruit flies cost farmers $7.8 million a year.\u201d Some estimates of the \u201clost opportunity costs\u201d brought about by waiawi, in terms of foregone economic activity, run as high as $78 million a year.<\/p>\n
\tTo control strawberry guava in managed forest areas, she said, costs $155 an acre for \u201cinitial knockdown costs, plus $123 per acre per year thereafter for maintenance.\u201d Overall, maintenance costs of managing strawberry guava on some 132,000 acres of natural areas on the Big Island would come to nearly $18 million, Denslow said. But with biocontrol, she added, the figure would be just a tenth of that.<\/p>\n
\tTracy Johnson, the entomologist with the Forest Service who has done the bulk of the research on T. ovatus<\/i>, addressed questions about the potential for the insect to spread beyond the target species. This insect, Johnson said, \u201cis not at all like the wiliwili gall wasp,\u201d which spread like wildfire across the entire island chain two years ago. T. ovatus<\/i> \u201cspread passively, with the wind or by crawlers,\u201d a juvenile stage in the life cycle. \u201cThey can\u2019t control where they end up. The gall wasp has wings and is good at flying, finding exactly the right plant. T. ovatus<\/i> can\u2019t direct its distribution in this way.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tJohnson said that the impacts of release of the insect may \u201cextend across large areas over a period of decades,\u201d but for backyard trees, the insect\u2019s limited mobility \u201clowers the likelihood that it will find isolated trees\u2026 If it does become a problem, and you want to grow waiawi with lots of fruit, you can always control it with the application of organic oils.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2018On the Brink\u2019<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Art Medeiros, who works with the U.S. Geological Survey at Haleakala National Park, flew over from Maui for the Hilo meeting. \u201cOur mauka lands are at the brink,\u201d he told the crowd. \u201cIs there a future for them, or not?\u201d<\/p>\n
\t\u201cSome people may think strawberry guava is just something in the forest,\u201d he said, but, like miconia, strawberry guava isn\u2019t just a part of the forest, it becomes<\/i> the forest.\u201d<\/p>\n
\t\u201cThere aren\u2019t too many magic bullets out there,\u201d Medeiros said. \u201cIn my mind, this is not a minor issue. This is make-or-break. We\u2019re either going to protect our forests, or not\u2026. I\u2019m working with Hawaiian groups to try to restore koa. We\u2019re trying to develop watershed forests that have cultural value, have watershed value, and are home to Hawaiian plants and animals. But it\u2019s all dependent on strawberry guava not being the super plant like it is right now. This is a critical issue.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tJulie Leialoha, with the Big Island Invasive Species Committee, described the difficulty of controlling strawberry guava. \u201cFor those who say we don\u2019t want to get rid of strawberry guava because it\u2019s good firewood, I say go for it. We\u2019ve got 80,000 acres of it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\t\u201cWe need something to stall its spread,\u201d she said, \u201cso we can buy time. \u2026 T. ovatus<\/i> won\u2019t kill the population, just stall seed productivity.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tRoger Vargas, a research entomologist with the USDA\u2019s Agricultural Research Service, outlined the tremendous economic losses associated with the rampant spread of strawberry guava, mainly related to its function as a host for the Oriental fruit fly and Mediterranean fruit fly. \u201cThe two species of fruit fly that you find on strawberry guava and common guava are the two worst,\u201d he said. \u201cThey attack more than 400 varieties of fruits and vegetables and are one of the primary reasons Hawai`i hasn\u2019t had successful agricultural diversification.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tIn recent years, the focus of his work has been on area-wide pest management, Vargas said, trying to increase the production of a variety of different agricultural products in Hawai`i. \u201cIn doing these technology transfers to farmers, consistently the No. 1 problem with every crop you look at \u2013 papaya, mango, cherimoya, lychee \u2013 was the impact of strawberry guava. Strawberry guava serves as a reservoir for the fruit flies, which go straight to the crops and just destroy most of it. This is an aspect of the problem that can\u2019t be underestimated,\u201d Vargas said.<\/p>\n
Starting Over<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
At the end of the meeting, Johnson announced that the environmental assessment process would begin anew, so that anyone and everyone who had comments could be assured that their concerns would be addressed.<\/p>\n
\tJohnson told Environment Hawai`i<\/i> that there were a couple of reasons for restarting the process. \u201cFirst,\u201d he said, \u201cthere was confusion over the original notice\u201d published by the state Office of Environmental Quality Control. \u201cThe proposing agency was listed as the state Department of Agriculture instead of the U.S. Forest Service,\u201d he said. \u201cSince it is the proposing agency that receives comments, there was some confusion about where to send comments. So we ended up getting comments, and so did the DOA. I\u2019m not worried that we missed anyone\u2019s comment, but the general confusion leaves me feeling that this justifies a re-doing.\u201d<\/p>\n
\t\u201cThe other reason,\u201d he said, \u201cis that I think we need to improve our EA.\u201d The draft EA released in April, he said, \u201cwas based on a federal EA, modified to meet state EA requirements. But in talking to more state people, it seems like this EA doesn\u2019t adequately address everything required in a state EA. So we\u2019re going to improve it based on consultations with state people, making sure we follow all those procedures.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tBut with permits allowing the insect to be released in hand from both the state Department of Agriculture and the federal U.S. Department of Agriculture, why was there a need for an EA in the first place?<\/p>\n
\t\u201cWe are proposing an action on state lands,\u201d Johnson said, \u201cso the trigger for the state EA is the use of state lands.\u201d While past releases of biocontrol agents have been subject only to federal EA requirements, he said, this year, he and colleagues at the state level decided it would be appropriate to go through the state EA process as well. \u201cI am trying to put together as thorough an assessment as I can that captures both the concerns as well as the best science we have.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tAt this point, he said, there had been no decision as to what agency would have responsibility for determining if the re-drafted EA was sufficient or if a more extensive environmental impact statement would have to be prepared. Paul Conry, head of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources\u2019 Division of Forestry and Wildlife, told Environment Hawai`i<\/i> that he would be sitting down with folks from the state DOA to decide which office would be cast in the role of determining agency.<\/p>\n Culture of GM Algae on State Land The Hawai`i Intermediate Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower-court decision that the state Board of Agriculture must have an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prepared before allowing the import of genetically modified algae. According to one attorney, the decision has far-reaching consequences for the way the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai`i manages its affairs.<\/p>\n \tThe case goes back to 2004, when Mera Pharmaceuticals, a tenant on state land managed by NELHA at Keahole, Kona, applied to the state Department of Agriculture for a permit to import eight genetically engineered strains of Chlamydomonas reinhardii 137c+<\/i> algae, or Cr137+ for short. The algae, to be obtained from Duke University, was to be grown in large photo bioreactors, with the intended product being high-value antibodies that might eventually be used in the treatment of diseases.<\/p>\n \tThe permit was required because all Chlamydomonas<\/i> algae are on the Board of Agriculture\u2019s list of restricted microorganisms, having been judged to be a \u201cmoderate risk\u201d to the environment or public health should they become dispersed.<\/p>\n \tNeil Reimer, chief of the Department of Agriculture\u2019s Plant Quarantine Branch, conducted an initial review of the application, concluding that Cr137+ posed an \u201cabove moderate risk.\u201d This meant the application had to be run past the Board of Agriculture\u2019s Advisory Committee on Plants and Animals before the BOA could approve the requested import permit. On May 5, 2005, the Advisory Committee met and recommended the board grant \u201cconditional approval.\u201d<\/p>\n \tThe BOA then held two public meetings at which the Mera application was considered. At the second of these, on June 28, Reimer backed off his initial assessment somewhat, telling the board that Mera\u2019s facilities minimized the risk that the algae would escape into the environment. \u201cIf zero risk was the standard for allowing import, nothing could be imported into the state,\u201d he said, \u201cnot even naturally occurring microorganisms.\u201d Even if the algae did escape, he added, \u201cit does not appear to be a human health issue.\u201d For them to escape and become invasive would only happen \u201cif an unusual chain of events occurred, such as a hurricane blowing the algae into a stream.\u201d<\/p>\n \tWith Reimer\u2019s testimony in hand, and over the objections of many members of the public, the BOA approved the application, requiring no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.<\/p>\n \tThe `Ohana Pale Ke Ao, Kohanaiki `Ohana, GMO-Free Hawai`i, and the Sierra Club, Hawai`i Chapter appealed the BOA decision to the Third Circuit Court (in Kona). The lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs were represented by Isaac Moriwake of Earthjustice, claimed that at the very least, the BOA should have required preparation of an environmental assessment. Judge Elizabeth Strance agreed, finding that the proposed action did indeed pull one of the triggers in the Hawai`i Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 343, Hawai`i Revised Statutes), in that it involved an \u201caction\u201d on state-owned land. The Board of Agriculture had argued that the action was not covered by Chapter 343, in that Chapter 150A vests the regulation of microorganisms solely with the BOA. And, in any case, if Chapter 343 compliance were to be required, two environmental impact statements that were prepared for NELHA lands (in 1976 and 1985) fully satisfied that requirement.<\/p>\n \tThe ICA rejected both claims. As to the applicability of HEPA, the court wrote: \u201cAlthough we need not consider it, given the plain language of HRS \u00a7 343-5, we note that the legislative history of HEPA also supports our conclusion\u2026. In enacting HEPA, the Legislature sought to monitor human activity that poses a threat to the quality of the environment, upon which we depend for our collective well-being.\u201d While the BOA claimed that Chapter 150A allowed it to be \u201cthe \u2018exclusive\u2019 mechanism for importing microorganisms, \u2026 there is no provision in either HRS chapter 150A or chapter 343 that expressly exempts the board from complying with HEPA when it acts on an application for a permit to import microorganisms\u2026 Accordingly, the board was required to comply with HEPA and prepare, at minimum, an EA before acting on Mera\u2019s application.\u201d<\/p>\n \tThe BOA\u2019s fallback argument \u2013 that previous environmental impact statements covered the proposed action — was similarly dismissed. The first EIS only examined infrastructure to be built at Keahole in support of anticipated energy research. The court picked up on limiting language in the two documents, such as this statement in the first EIS: \u201cFuture projects are at present conceptual and the impact of each project cannot be completely defined at this time\u2026 An EIS will be prepared, when required, prior to initiation of a proposed future research project to determine the impacts to the site and its surroundings.\u201d The 1985 EIS, prepared when about 550 acres of state land were added to the original NELH site, did mention as an anticipated activity \u201cthe culture of various types of micro- and macro-algae,\u201d which could be produced \u201cin either raceway, tank or pond culture operations.\u201d The court pointed out, however, \u201cthere is no discussion in the 1985 EIS regarding the production of micro-algae in photobioreactors. There is also no discussion about the potential environmental impacts of large-scale production of micro-algae in raceways, tanks, or ponds, which the EIS mentions are feasible operations\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n \tThe court points out that the two documents were prepared \u0093more than three and two decades ago, respectively,\u201d when the facilities at NELHA \u201cwere still conceptual or in their infancy stages\u2026. It is clear from the EISs that as the nature and details of individual projects \u2026 became known, further HEPA review was expected.\u201d<\/p>\n A Disaster for NELHA<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n One attorney familiar with the case told Environment Hawai`i<\/i> that the ICA decision will present a real problem for NELHA \u2013 which has not always been scrupulous in ensuring that proposed developments fall within limits established by previous environmental impact statements.<\/p>\n \t\u201cI have a problem with the case, in that it really draws a fine line as to what is covered by an EIS \u2013 a much finer line than I would\u2019ve drawn,\u201d the attorney stated. The decision, he continued \u201cis disastrous for NELHA. It can no longer wave a magic wand and say everything is covered. Making freshwater and bottling it and shipping it out \u2013 there\u2019s nothing in the EIS about that! Where is that? Now you\u2019re going to have to look through everything with a fine-toothed comb.\u201d<\/p>\n \tEarthjustice attorney Isaac Moriwake hailed the ICA\u2019s action. \u201cI think it\u2019s another important decision affirming the requirement of environmental review under Chapter 343,\u201d he told Environment Hawai`i<\/i>. \u201cIt simply validates what folks have been saying all along: projects on state land trigger this minimum EA process, which is the first step toward figuring out whether there may be significant environmental impacts. One of the most distressing things about this case was that there was so much resistance to doing even this bare minimum step. This case drives home that point \u2013 that the EA should be something that\u2019s automatic rather than something perceived as a nuisance that should be avoided at all costs.\u201d \tDavid Webber, the deputy attorney general who argued the case for the Board of Agriculture, said that while the ruling is very clear, \u201cits impact, and how that affects us going forward, is still under consideration. We\u2019re giving that careful review.\u201d<\/p>\n \tThe state could still appeal to the Hawai`i Supreme Court, but Webber said no decision had been made on that option.<\/p>\n — Patricia Tummons<\/p>\n Volume 19, Number 1 July 2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Controversy Flares Over Proposal to Control Waiawi with Scale Insect The proposed release of a scale insect to control strawberry guava, or waiawi (Psidium cattleianum), has sparked an outcry of opposition among some sectors of the public. Yet, although the … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[167],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-july-2008"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nNeeds Environmental Review,
\nAppeals Court Says<\/b><\/div>\n
\n\tNancy Redfeather, a coffee farmer with GMO-Free Hawai`i, told Environment Hawai`i<\/i>, \u201cTwice now, the courts have ruled that this project had potential dangers for the environment and human health, and that an EA was required.\u201d She noted that the plaintiffs\u2019 algae expert, Malcolm Brown, from the University of Texas, testified that just a single drop escaping from the project could begin a cascade of reproduction in the local environment.<\/p>\n