{"id":17148,"date":"2026-05-05T09:31:14","date_gmt":"2026-05-05T19:31:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=17148"},"modified":"2026-05-05T10:06:10","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T20:06:10","slug":"conflicting-testimony-offered-in-contested-case-over-destruction-of-habitat-at-marconi-point","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=17148","title":{"rendered":"Conflicting Testimony Offered in Contested Case Over Destruction of Habitat at Marconi Point"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Facing fines of more than $3.1 million, the landowner who paid for the unauthorized clearing of coastal vegetation<\/a> \u2014 including endangered Hawaiian yellow-faced bee habitat \u2014at Marconi Point in October 2023 has tried to shift the blame onto his contractor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Department of Land and Natural Resources has drafted a settlement agreement with the contractor, Ben Lessary, although this has not yet been brought to the Board of Land and Natural Resources for approval.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During a contested case hearing<\/a> held earlier this year on violations stemming from the clearing work that occurred in the Conservation District fronting the Marconi Point Condominiums project, unit owner Sushil Garg claimed he never called for coastal vegetation to be cut, merely for tall grass further inland to be mowed and dead brush to be removed, in part, to reduce what he saw as a fire risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garg\u2019s attorney, Kalani Morse, asked if he ever gave Lessary explicit instructions to cut down plants near the beach. Garg said he had not. When asked what he told Lessary to do, Garg replied, \u201cWhen we bought the [coastal] lots in July of 2023, I \u2014 again, we don\u2019t live here, so we visit here every so often. We visited in August, although we bought the lots in July. So we went to the property, and I looked at the lots, and the lots had this overgrown grass and, you know, weeds up to your knees all dried up. And this is about the time of the Maui fires, so I went out there and I said, \u2018Hey, Ben. Why is this all grown up? Why are you guys not taking care of it?\u2019 And he said, \u2018Because Jeremy [Henderson, the condo project developer] wasn\u2019t paying us, so we weren\u2019t taking care of his land,\u2019 because I bought the lots from Jeremy \u2026 I said, \u2018We have to take care of it. We have to cut this as soon as we can.\u2019 He said, \u2018We\u2019ll take care of it.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garg\u2019s Greystone HI Investments, LLC, purchased four units in May 2022. Garg admitted that during a walk of his land near the beach that year, he had asked about maintaining the area and that Lessary and the nursery manager for the condo project, Henry Fong, had advised him that he could not cut the coastal vegetation within the Conservation District.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garg had responded, \u201cBut the plants are on my property,\u201d he testified. Then he added that both Lessary and Fong advised him, \u201cNo, no, no. Your property is conservation land.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garg testified that he never had another discussion with them about cutting the beachfront vegetation, \u201c[b]ecause they already told me the first time, so what was the point?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garg said that on October 11, 2023, he and his wife, Lorene, visited the property. He said they were unaware of any vegetation trimming at the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey were showing us some of the work they did on the [historic] buildings<\/a>, primarily the hotel, which is a two-story building. We were on the second story of the building looking out, and Ben said, \u2018I wanted to surprise you guys. You’ll see something.\u2019 And we looked out and we said, \u2018No.\u2019 We saw some birds. We thought he was talking about the albatross, and he said, ‘No, no, no. Look at the beach.\u2019 And we looked at the beach and said, \u2018I hate to tell you this, but we don’t really see what you’re saying.\u2019 He goes, \u2018No, I cleaned it. The beach is much cleaner.\u2019 \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c[W]e got into an ATV, I guess, and we drove down to the beach, and we walked around on the beach, and he showed me. \u2026 He showed me what he was trimming, and I asked him, I said, \u2018I thought we couldn’t do cutting on the beach,\u2019 and he said, \u2018No, we’re not cutting. We’re trimming it. This is what we have been doing since 2013, all these years, and we’d still be doing it if Jeremy was paying, and I wanted to give you a surprise, a pleasant surprise to see how we’re cleaning up this.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Morse asked Garg, \u201cAnd did you think anything of it at this time?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNo. I just thought it was okay,\u201d Garg replied. He later testified that he had FaceTimed that day with the boyfriend of Yue-Sai Kan, who then owned condo unit 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI showed him, \u2018We\u2019re on the property. It looks nice, pretty clean, and by the way, there was \u2014Ben did some cleaning on the beach,\u2019 and I just kind of showed him on FaceTime what that looked like.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garg said he next heard from Lessary on October 16, when he said that someone from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wanted permission to come onto the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHe said there were some crybabies who were complaining about him cutting on the beach,\u201d Garg said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He admitted that he paid Lessary for the work he and his crew did along the coastline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt was part of a normal bill. He sent me a bill, and I paid him for it,\u201d Garg said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exhibits submitted in the contested case include Lessary\u2019s handwritten ledger detailing what Garg owed for labor and material or equipment costs incurred in a given week (such as rental of a wood chipper, gas for the chipper), as well as the time around which the clearing occurred. Also included were bank statements from Greystone HI Investments, indicating that on October 19, shortly after the clearing work was completed, it had paid Lessary the exact amount that the ledger said was owed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A ledger kept by Ben Lessary showing the amount due for work done during the week in October 2023 when unauthorized clearing occurred in the Conservation District at Marconi Point (left) \u2014 $23,418 \u2014 and a bank statement from Sushil Grag\u2019s Greystone HI Investments LLC, indicating Lessary was paid that amount on October 19, 2023 (right). Credit: Contested case hearing exhibits. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Fong and Lessary\u2019s testimonies have contradicted some of Garg\u2019s account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fong testified in a written statement to the Land Board and during the contested case hearing that the Gargs had directed Lessary to cut the coastal vegetation and had discussed it on three occasions. Fong said he had warned them that the work would violate Conservation District rules. Even so, he testified that they ordered it anyway and were pleased with what they saw as the work was being done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey came to the property. We rode on the red golf cart out to Yue-Sai\u2019s lot. They were happy the way it was looking. They said it looked terrific,\u201d he testified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDid they mention anything about fire?\u201d asked deputy attorney general Danica Patel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNo,\u201d Fong replied. He also testified that the discussions with the Gargs about clearing the coastal area occurred before the August 2023 fires on Maui, and, in any case, the coastal vegetation posed no fire risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt was in perfect condition. \u2026 I mean, there wasn\u2019t, like, dead branches falling all over the place,\u201d Fong said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fong also noted that the some of the equipment used, including a wood chipper and skid-steer, were rentals that Garg had paid for before the work started.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fong said after the work had been done, he told Lessary, \u201cThey\u2019re going to get fined because it was a violation. For one, they don\u2019t have a permit to even do the work on the shoreline, and they went below the vegetation of the high-water mark, so that is a big no-no already.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo you didn\u2019t warn them?\u201d asked Morse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Oh, I warned Sushil them,\u201d Fong replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDid you warn Ben?\u201d Morse asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWell, he was there, but, I mean, they got to take orders from their boss, and they took orders from their boss,\u201d Fong said. He added that had he refused Lorene Garg\u2019s request that he and another nursery worker cut the naupaka on the beach and that after the work was done anyway, he told that worker, \u201cLorene should never have even ordered that work to be done because it\u2019s against the rules and regulations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lessary testified that the discussions that led to the clearing done in October 2023 focused on getting the area cleaned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Did you think it was not clean?\u201d Patel asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYeah,\u201d Lessary said, noting that the area had not \u201cbeen touched since I got let go from Jeremy Henderson in 2019.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat did he tell you \u2014 what did Mr. Garg tell you he wanted done?\u201d Patel asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWanted to get it cleaned up,\u201d Lessary said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He explained that he understood that this meant the kind of work he had done for Henderson about a decade ago, when they cleared invasive species from the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo did you understand him [Garg] to want you to take all the vegetation out?\u201d Patel asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lessary said they were taking out all the dead debris.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere were a lot of dead debris in the naupaka. \u2026 So that\u2019s what the \u2014 all the other working employees were doing. I was on the skid-steer only. I didn\u2019t cut no trees,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The skid-steer had a mulcher on the front of it and the crew would bring cut material over to a pile \u201cand then I would just come right over and mulch it down,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patel asked how they discussed what the plan was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe just went out there and everybody just started to do their thing and say, just, \u2018We\u2019re all here to just cut out all the dead debris,\u2019 and that\u2019s what they did,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOkay. But it seems like a lot of live vegetation was cut too, right?\u201d Patel said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI cannot say. I was inside the skid-steer,\u201d Lessary replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMy intention and everybody\u2019s intention was just to prune and rejuvenate the trees,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
This stretch of vegetation at Marconi Point was known to be a robust habitat for endangered Hawaiian yellow-faced bees. The top photo, taken in 2022, shows what it used to look like before unauthorized clearing occurred in October 2023. The bottom photo was taken in November 2023.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

None of the other owners of condo units along the coast instructed him to clear the vegetation. And, in fact, one of the unit owners did not want the vegetation fronting their property cleared, he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Patel asked Lessary whether he remembered Fong saying that he told people about the Conservation District rules, Lessary replied, \u201cI can\u2019t answer that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She then asked what followed after the Department of Land and Natural Resources had issued a letter on October 19 to all of the landowners at Marconi Point Condominium about the unauthorized clearing and potential violations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Morse immediately objected. \u201cLacks foundation. Speaking to an unspecified letter the witness hasn\u2019t seen.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patel to Lessary: \u201cDo you know what I\u2019m talking about?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lessary said he remembered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patel asked, \u201cDo you remember what happened after everybody got their letter?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cObjection. Vague and ambiguous,\u201d Morse interjected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After Hearing Officer Lou Chang overruled the objection, Lessary said that Garg called him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHe said, \u2018You need to go and check your [e]mail.\u2019 \u2026 and then I called him up and he said, \u2018Did you see what you saw in the mail?\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI said, \u2018yeah.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo then he told me, \u2018Okay, I need you to go down to Kalani\u2019s office and go meet with him and I\u2019ll pay for your legal services,\u2019 and so that\u2019s where I went.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWere you comfortable with that arrangement?\u201d Patel asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAt first I was, but after \u2014 after a couple of days, I wasn\u2019t feeling right,\u201d Lessary replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd is that when you got Mr. Rivera as your counsel?\u201d Patel asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, Lessary replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Patel asked whether Garg ever told him why he wanted the vegetation cleared, Lessary said, \u201cHe wanted to build homes for his kids on the beachfront lots. \u2026 We did talk about fire risk. \u2026 That was some sort of reason because of the Maui fires. And then, you know, we walked the shoreline and we saw a lot of dead brush inside the naupaka.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDid he ever tell you he wanted to see the ocean,\u201d Patel asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYes, he wants to see the ocean,\u201d Lessary replied, although he said he did not think it was a big reason why Garg wanted the vegetation gone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Patel asked whether Garg had ever asked him to check if he needed permits to do the work, Lessary said no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut I did discuss to him about if we don\u2019t have any permits and we do proceed with any work, we will get complaints,\u201d Lessary said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd is that what happened here?\u201d Patel asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYeah. I believe on the first day we worked out there, I \u2014 the bird people was out there that day, and there were three of them, older man, older ladies, and I\u2019ve been working with them prior when Jeremy Henderson who owned the property prior to Sushil Garg. And then they wasn\u2019t happy what they saw that day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo when they came, approached me, they asked, \u2018Hey, what\u2019s going on?\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI told \u2018em \u2018We just clean. We\u2019re pruning, we cleaning.\u2019 But I could see in their face that they wasn\u2019t happy. So they walked away, so I called Sushil and I told him, \u2018Be ready for the first complaint.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Respondeat Superior<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the pre-hearing brief for Garg and his companies, their attorneys argued that Lessary was not their employee, but merely an independent contractor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSushil would typically outline the scope and end-goals \u2026 and then rely on Ben’s experience and judgment to organize and execute such projects. Sushil \u2026 was not present enough to provide supervision, direction, or exert control over the manner in which Ben accomplished the work needed to complete each project,\u201d they stated. (Garg went so far as to suggest that Lessary and Fong were lying about their conversations and about the scope of work to be done at Marconi Point. \u201cMaybe they\u2019re trying to put a blame on me instead of themselves,\u201d Garg testified.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They wrote that after the Notices of Violation were sent out, a distraught Lessary sought advice and reassurance that everything would be fine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDuring that conversation, Ben sought clarity from Sushil regarding his role in managing and executing the maintenance, repair, and improvement projects at Marconi. Sushil clarified that Ben’s work at Marconi, like the work Ben performed for others besides Sushil, was work that was completed as an independent contractor, not to be confused with a licensed general contractor,\u201d they continued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patel addressed this in her cross-examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She asked Garg whether he was aware that, under Hawai\u02bbi law, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the hiring party can prove otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garg said he was not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her pre-hearing brief, she explained that under the theory of respondeat superior, \u201can employer may be liable for the negligent acts of its employees that occur within the scope of their employment.\u201d (The term is Latin for \u201clet the master answer.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She noted that according to the state Supreme Court, \u201cConduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if: It is of the kind he is employed to perform; \ufeff\ufeff\ufeff\ufeffit occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits [and] i\ufeff\ufefft is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To recover fines from Garg and his companies, the DLNR \u201cmust establish that the alleged violations were the negligent, at the very least, acts of petitioner Garg’s employees and that the negligent acts were within the scope of petitioner Garg’s employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhile the department finds that petitioner Lessary actually committed the alleged violations, the evidence will demonstrate that the alleged violations were only conducted pursuant to petitioner Garg’s instruction in an employer-employee relationship. The department has no evidence that will show that petitioner Lessary and the other workers conducted the work for personal benefit, other than the money they received for doing work for petitioner Garg,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Absence of evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In connection with the October 2023 clearing event, the DLNR\u2019s Division of Forestry and Wildlife is seeking $1,482,500 in administrative fines for the destruction of 296 endangered Hylaeus<\/em> bees. That\u2019s $5,000 in administrative fines per bee plus $2,500 for taking the bees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The DLNR\u2019s Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands is seeking $1,625,000 for the removal of 105 trees in the general subzone of the Conservation District, as well as clearing and spreading mulch over more than one acre, and damaging, killing or removing 40 trees on state-owned submerged land in the resource subzone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In total, the agencies seek $3,107,500.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Morse stated in his brief that Garg did not dispute \u201cthat the pruning and trimming occurred in the Conservation District without proper permits. The general instruction for Ben to clean up the property did not include specific requests or instructions to trim or prune any foliage on or near the shorefront at Marconi.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, he continued, the unauthorized work \u201cdid not result in a loss or destruction of the shoreline foliage and habitat for the bees. Sushil of course regrets that a lack of clear information and miscommunication led to the misunderstanding which resulted in the trees and shrubs being trimmed without proper oversight, guidance, and permits. Nevertheless, these regrets and the lack of a permit for the work done does zero to establish the veracity or accuracy of the erroneous and overestimated fines calculated and levied against petitioners.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although DLNR staff had used GPS to record the locations of trees cut, Garg\u2019s expert arborist Douglas Demoss stated in a January 23 declaration that after surveys he did of the entire beach strand at Marconi between December 2025 and January 2026, \u201cI was unable to identify anything close to 105 dead tree stumps. I also scoured the beachfront area below the wash of the waves and was unable to identify all but a few dead tree stumps in that area, nowhere near 40, though I did find some that appeared to have been cut more than just a few years ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He stated the beach heliotrope across most portions of the beach strand appeared to be growing and thriving. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI cannot agree with the statement that the foliage on the beach at Marconi was killed, lost, or destroyed,\u201d he stated, adding, \u201cIf the bees living in that foliage are using the heliotrope flowers for pollen and nectar, the shrub prunings appear to have multiplied the number of heliotrope branches and this significantly increased the number of flowers on the shrubs on the shorefront.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Garg\u2019s bee expert, biology professor Joseph Wilson from Utah State University, also prepared a report for the contested case hearing. Among other things, he stated that the available scientific knowledge and evidence was \u201cfar from sufficient to support the DLNR\u2019s claims that the October 2023 vegetation clearing at Marconi Point: a) killed a number of endangered Hawaiian yellow-faced bees and\/or their nests\/eggs\/larvae, b) eliminated\/decimated the bee population at Marconi, or c) resulted in any quantifiable take. Furthermore, the numerical estimates of bee mortality presented by DLNR cannot be independently verified and are not scientifically defensible given data currently available and the unsubstantiated and unsupportable assumptions utilized when calculating such estimates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFirst, there is no clear evidence to establish that any endangered bees were actually killed as a result of the trimming. No bee specimens, carcasses, destroyed nests, or other physical indicators actually verifying mortality were documented.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, Patel noted that shortly after the clearing was done, University of Hawai\u02bbi assistant researcher Paul Krushelnycky and entomologist Cynthia King assessed the damage to the bees, conducting standardized bee count surveys \u201cto compare to the relative abundance of Hylaeus<\/em> bees at that moment in time to other known sites where the species occur.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bee monitoring plots were established near bee locations documented in 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to a November 2023 take statement by Dr. Sheldon Plentovich of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, \u201cThe \u2018Marconi Station\u2019 area was a known hot spot with high densities of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees. I visited the area regularly to monitor Laysan Albatross chicks from November – July and made a point to stop and watch the bees on most visits because they are so rare.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Krushelnycky\u2019s final assessment included several photos of mostly naked trees where the bees had been known to occur. It also noted, \u201cMany bees, both males and females, were observed congregating on and around the cut tree heliotrope branches shown. The females may have been searching for nests in the downed branches.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Left photo: The seven locations where H. anthracinus<\/em> presence was recorded on 6\/12\/20 (dots) and the six bee monitoring plots established on 10\/18\/23 (squares). Right photo: Location of GPS point 1 from 6\/12\/20. Notes from 6\/12\/20 stated that there were \u201clots of anthracinus swarming on Helfoe (Heliotropium foertherianum<\/em>)\u201d at this location. Credit: Paul Krushelnycky’s assessment report<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Patel\u2019s brief argued that Krushelnycky \u201cused the best available scientific techniques to estimate the number of Hylaeus<\/em> bees, including their nest, eggs, and young, taken during the vegetation clearing event in October 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe \u2018absence\u2019 of exact evidence to establish the number of animals, including eggs, larvae, and nests, taken by petitioners\u2019 activities was caused by petitioners\u2019 actual destruction of all evidence. Dr. [Karl] Magnacca, Dr. Krushelnycky, Dr. Plentovich, and entomologist King agree that any and all Hylaeus <\/em> bee adults, eggs, larvae, and nests would have been destroyed when processed through a mulcher, as their habitat was by petitioners. It would have been impossible to sort through the mulched vegetation to look for Hylaeus <\/em>bee adults, eggs, larvae, and nests. The destruction of the vegetation was also the destruction of any evidence of the take of the Hylaeus<\/em> bees,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Henderson testified that he knew of the bees\u2019 presence, but Lessary and Garg testified that they didn\u2019t know until after the clearing. Patel pointed out that they might have known had they sought permits. Despite Garg\u2019s testimony to her that he never tried to develop vacant land before, he appeared to have done just that in California. She presented to him a 2020 survey, prepared as part of a permitting process, that discovered an endangered gnatcatcher on property he was trying to develop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey live in a specific plant, and we had a lot of plant on this property, so they [USFWS] wanted to make sure that there was no gnatcatcher there, and if there is, those gnatcatchers were \u2014 the plants were relocated so gnatcatchers can be fine,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“So in California, it seems like you were aware that you needed to follow certain permitting procedures to accomplish your goals on that property, right?\u201d Patel asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYes, and we followed them,\u201d Garg said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo what research did you do about Hawai\u02bbi permitting procedures to accomplish your goal on the Marconi Point Condominium units?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI didn’t do any research here,\u201d Garg replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The evidentiary portion of the hearing concluded in April. The parties await recommendations from hearing officer Chang.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Teresa Dawson<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Facing fines of more than $3.1 million, the landowner who paid for the unauthorized clearing of coastal vegetation — including endangered Hawaiian yellow-faced bee habitat —at Marconi Point in October 2023 has tried to shift the blame onto his contractor. … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17119,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,26,338,550],"tags":[3],"class_list":["post-17148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-dlnr","category-endangered-species","category-land-use","category-may-2026","tag-teresa-dawson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17148","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=17148"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17148\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17156,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17148\/revisions\/17156"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17119"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}