![\"Historic](\"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Historic-sites-2.jpg\")
Board\u00a0Imposes $9,400 Fine\u00a0For Damages to Historic Sites<\/b><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Board\u00a0Imposes $9,400 Fine\u00a0For Damages to Historic Sites<\/b><\/p>\n
It\u2019s not every day that the state Board of Land and Natural Resources imposes fines for damages to archaeologicalsites and when it has, those fines have been pretty meager. So when the Department of Land and Natural Resources\u2019 State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) last month recommended fines for damages to several historic sites in Kona that were a small fraction of the maximum, Maui Land Board member Jimmy Gomes made clear his disappointment. On September 11, the board unanimously approved a fine of $9,400, as proposed by SHPD, for damages Kona resident Richard Stewart caused to eight sites on his four-acre agricultural lot that are believed to be part of the historic Kona Field System. The field system is on the National Register of Historic Places and, according to SHPD administrator Alan Downer, is \u201cone of the most important sites in Hawai`i.\u201d<\/p>\n
In 2013, Hawai`i County and SHPD inspectors found that a contractor Stewart hired to clear overgrowth on his parcel had used an excavator to clear most of the property. In the process, the contractor had destroyed historic agricultural mounds and rock walls and damaged a stone platform, all without a grading and grubbing permit from the county or a SHPD-approved archaeological inventory survey (AIS), which is a prerequisite for the county permit.<\/p>\n
At the Land Board meeting last month, SHPD proposed fining Stewart $500 per affected site, $5,000 for damaging the Kona Field System, and $400 in administrative costs. Gomes immediately asked SHPD staff how it determined those fine amounts and why it was not imposing the maximum fine of $10,000 per violation.<\/p>\n
\u201cWouldn\u2019t you say this is a slap on the wrist?\u201dGomes asked.<\/p>\n
Downer replied that his division had determined that the proposed fine was consistent with amounts previously assessed on the rare occasions SHPD pursued fines for violations.<\/p>\n
\u201cMoving forward, we should be looking at more significant penalties,\u201dhe assured Gomes.<\/p>\n
But Gomes did not want to wait.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019d like to start here,\u201dhe said, adding that he believed the work on Stewart\u2019s property had proceeded with complete disregard for the rules.<\/p>\n
Stewart bought the agriculturally zoned property at auction in 2007 and, according to a SHPD report to the Land Board, planned to rezone and subdivide it into six house lots. However, in 2009, SHPD advised him to refrain from any ground-altering work on the property until he received approval of an AIS.<\/p>\n
Stewart testified to the Land Board that he didn\u2019t have the money at first to conduct an AIS, but had been able to obtain a \u201cclearance letter\u201dfrom the Hawaiian family who owned the property before he did, which stated that there were no archaeological sites or human burials onsite.<\/p>\n
\u201cBased on this letter, I thought it was pretty good,\u201dStewart said. He added that he also sought out archaeologists to conduct an AIS, but they all said the brush on his property was too dense to get through.<\/p>\n
To make the area easier to survey and to minimize any fire hazard the brush posed, Stewart said he asked the county if he could clear the vegetation.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey said if you\u2019re doing just brush clearing, you don\u2019t need a permit,\u201dhe said. With that, Stewart hired a contractor who had \u201ca big machine that will mow the stuff from the top down.\u201d<\/p>\n
Stewart then offered the Land Board the same arguments he made (unsuccessfully) to the Hawai`i County Board of Appeals when arguing last year against a grubbing violation for the same work: The machine had no blade, claw, bucket, or any other mechanism to uproot the vegetation; it simply \u201cmowed\u201dthe brush from the top down, leaving chipped material in its wake. Therefore, he argued, he was not illegally grading or grubbing. (He did, however, admit that the clearing exceeded the county\u2019s one-acre limit for brush-clearing without a permit.)<\/p>\n
Stewart told the Land Board that when he learned that his contractor had damaged archaeological sites, he felt terrible.<\/p>\n
\u201cFortunately, there are no burials on that ground, no \u2026heiaus, no sacred sites,\u201dhe said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI can now see under the\u00a0laws that exist, that a violation may have occurred,\u201dhe admitted.<\/p>\n
He told the board that he tried to act in good faith and hoped it would consider his side of the story.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m disabled and get about $1,700 a month,\u201dhe said. He also claimed that he was \u201cbasically bankrupt.\u201d<\/p>\n
Stewart\u2019s testimony did not, in any way, sway Gomes. First, Gomes argued, one does not cut a fire break by grubbing the whole lot. And with regard to Stewart\u2019s claim that his contractor\u2019smachine was merely a very large mower, Gomes noted that he owned such a machine himself.<\/p>\n
\u201cI know exactly what that machine looks like. It\u2019s an excavator,\u201dGomes said, adding that the driver would have most definitely seen the rock formations that before they were damaged.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou can\u2019t tell me he didn\u2019t see,\u201dhe said.<\/p>\n
Land Board member Stanley Roehrig, an attorney, also took issue with Stewart\u2019s claims of bankruptcy.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou keep saying you\u2019re almost bankrupt. If you\u2019re just saying that to impress us, I don\u2019t take it lightly. \u2026If you have a financial statement, you should show us,\u201dRoehrig said.<\/p>\n
Stewart, who admitted he had not gone through any federal bankruptcy or receivership, agreed that he had used \u201ca poor choice of words.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the end, the Land Board voted unanimously to approve SHPD\u2019s recommendation. After the vote, however, Gomes added that, for the record, he disagreed with the staff\u2019s recommendation on the fine.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it should be the max. \u2026For me [the fine is] just a slap on the wrist,\u201dGomes said.<\/p>\n
(For more background, see the story in our December 2014 issue, available at environment-hawaii.org.)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
***<\/b><\/p>\n
State Spends Tens of Thousands<\/b><\/p>\n
To Remove Tsunami-Related Debris<\/b><\/p>\n
Hawai`i has until next January to spend all of its $250,000 portion of marine debris removal funds provided by the government of Japan following the 2011 tsunami that devastated the country\u2019s coastal regions. So far, less than $58,000 has been spent, according to a recent report from the DLNR\u2019s Land Division to the Land Board.<\/p>\n
The tsunami generated an estimated 1.5 million tons of marine debris, the report continues. And because that debris is expected to wash ashore throughout the Pacific for years to come, Japan gave the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) $5 million in 2013 to help with clean-up efforts.<\/p>\n
NOAA distributed $250,000 each to Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawai`i and reserved the rest of the gift for use on an as-needed basis. The states were given until January 2016 to spend their portions. Unspent amounts would then be returned to NOAA.<\/p>\n
Alaska has already spent all of its funds and has repeatedly requested and received more, DLNR Land Division administrator Russell Tsuji told the Land Board at its September 11 meeting.<\/p>\n
Hawai`i, on the other hand, has been slow to spend its portion.<\/p>\n
At the meeting, where\u00a0the Land Board belatedly granted its approval to receive the funds, Tsuji explained, \u201cWe have been very cautiously spending. We don\u2019t want to use the funds on non-Japan debris.\u201dHe added that it\u2019s sometimes difficult to identify the origin of the debris. (Hawai`i sits at the center of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, making it a hot spot for marine debris.)<\/p>\n
The DLNR, which decides how the state\u2019s portion is used, has spent $28,000 disposing of a large steel mooring buoy that made its way to the island of Hawai`i, about $12,000 removing a \u201cutility transport vehicle\u201dfrom O`ahu,\u00a0 and about $7,000 disposing of a shipping container and conducting an invasive species survey on Kaua`i, among other things, according to the report.<\/p>\n
The department plans some larger projects this fall, including an aerial survey of the Main Hawaiian Islands and debris removal from Kaho`olawe\u2019s Kanapou Beach and Ni`ihau\u2019s South Shore.<\/p>\n
At-large Land Board member Chris Yuen commented that he\u00a0thought it was extraordinarily generous of the Japanese government to provide the United States with such a gift.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey have a tsunami that destroys [their coastline] \u2026and they give us money. I don\u2019t know if the U.S. would do that,\u201dhe said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
***<\/b><\/p>\n
Land Board Moves to Ban<\/b><\/p>\n
Commercial Take Of Sea Cucumbers<\/b><\/p>\n
Commercial fishing of sea cucumbers \u2014 except for the aquarium trade \u2014 may soon be illegal in Hawai`i if rules that have been recently approved for public hearings emerge unchanged.<\/p>\n
Earlier this year, the \u00a0Land Board approved emergency rules banning the take of sea cucumbers when reported catches spiked after a dealer that sells to Asian markets began operations in Hawai`i. The rules, which expire in December, are aimed at protecting the local population of sea cucumbers from over-harvesting, which has occurred elsewhere in the Pacific.<\/p>\n
To ensure \u00a0sea cucumbers continue to be protected after December, the Department of Land and Natural Resources\u2019Division of Aquatic Resources proposed on August 28 to take rules banning commercial\u00a0harvest\u00a0to the public. However, the rules exempted collecting of up to 3,600 animals by aquarium collectors. DAR also proposed a requirement that anyone taking sea cucumbers register with the department.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe proposed closure of the commercial consumption fishery will end the one existing dealer who was in operation at the time of the emergency rule adoption,\u201da DAR report to the Land Board states.<\/p>\n
At the Land Board\u2019s meeting, board member Chris Yuen asked\u00a0whether the registration requirement would turn individuals harvesting sea cucumbers for their own use or consumption into violators. Kaua`i Land Board member Tommy Oi echoed Yuen\u2019s concern.<\/p>\n
\u201cMore and more, we\u2019re putting regulations on the everyday people because of illegal commercial taking. Why should every Tom, Dick, and Harry be subject to something commercial guys illegally did?\u201dOi asked before suggesting that the division simply impose a daily bag limit rather than require registration.<\/p>\n
The rules, as proposed, do include a daily bag limit of three sea cucumbers for non-commercial human consumption and seven sea cucumbers for non-consumptive use \u201cprovided that [they] are released alive and in good health immediately after use. (The latter bag limit conditions address the non-lethal use of sea cucumber guts to treat wounds. Sea cucumbers, which can eject their guts as a defense mechanism, can also regenerate the organs.)<\/p>\n
Board member Ulalia Woodside added her concerns about the justification of the maximum take for the aquarium trade. In DAR\u2019s report to the Land Board, the division recommended closing the commercial fishery \u201cdue to the continued concern that a sustainable take level is unknown at the present time. Without this information, there is uncertainty as to whether any level of commercial take is sustainable.\u201d However, when discussing take of the animals by aquarium fishers, the report states, \u201cThe current data indicates that this level of take is not a concern and<\/p>\n
can likely occur without adverse impact to sea cucumber populations.\u201d<\/p>\n
For confidentiality reasons, data on aquarium harvest of sea cucumbers were not provided to the Land Board. \u00a0Woodside, for one, asked to see some data after the public hearings conclude supporting DAR\u2019s proposed maximum take level .<\/p>\n
DAR\u2019s report notes that since 2008, a\u00a0handful of aquarium fishers has taken 1,500 to 3,500 sea cucumbers per year. Yet, to preserve the industry, the division proposed a take of 3,600 animals.<\/p>\n
That number, Woodside said, \u201cdoes feel a little out of thin air.\u201dWhen she asked whether the board could later adjust the maximum take level, DAR staff said the board could do that so long as the issue was discussed during the hearings.<\/p>\n
To better assess an appropriate aquarium take level, Yuen said he\u2019d like DAR to provide the board with the fishery\u2019s catch reports in executive session when the matter comes back for final approval.<\/p>\n
The Land Board ultimately approved public hearings on the rules on the condition that they first be amended so individual, non-commercial fishers don\u2019t need to register. Land Board chair Suzanne Case asked DAR to instead use the public hearing process to explore ways the public can voluntarily provide information on the non-commercial harvest of sea cucumbers.<\/p>\n
\u2014 Teresa Dawson<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Volume 26, Number 4 October<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Board Imposes $9,400 Fine For Damages to Historic Sites It’s not every day that the state Board of Land and Natural Resources imposes fines for damages to archaeologicalsites and when it has, those fines have been pretty meager. So when the … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8393,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,391],"tags":[3],"class_list":["post-8392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-board-talk","category-october-2015","tag-teresa-dawson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8392","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=8392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8392\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/8393"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}