2024-03-06 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Megan Lamson Testimony

Home

a report includes the fish"abundance"data for only six species of fish (Appendix J). This is ridiculous. --Also frustrating was the 71h point in Appendix J where they posited that long term studies of turtles indicate that their numbers are increasing while the growth rate has slowed. From this, they propose that any"slight" enhancement in water nutrients from golf-course(development, sewage ... etc.) runoff may in fact help the turtles by increasing the amount of limu available for them to eat. Two things, first of all,how dare they turn eutrophication (nutrient loading) into a good thing. From the Caribbean to Kaneohe Bay, Oahu (Lapointe 1997, McCook 1999), we are seeing more and more examples of"coral-algal phase shifts"; a process induced by the combination of nutrient overloading, overfishing, as well as other natural disturbances (Littler & Littler 1984, Grigg&Dollar 1990, Lapointe 1997, Hughes & Connell 1999). This is not something that should be treaded so lightly, especially from such a highly experienced researcher in this field. Secondly, the authors failed to mention that the literature they were drawing this from(Balazs & Chaloupka 2004) was talking strictly about the threatened green turtle(or honu), Chelonia mydas. The authors of that paper,nor the lacking marine and pond environments analysis (Appendix J), are not concerned with the highly endangered Hawksbill turtle (or honu`ea),Eretmochelys imbricata. This too is faulty research, as E. imbricata can be found using both Punalu`u and Ninole Cove as a nesting beach Also, I feel that it is crucial to note that the island's most important site for Hawksbill nestings is a mere three miles southeast along the coastline at Kamehame. It was presumptuous of the authors to have left this out of the DEIS and essentially assume that a thousand additional beachgoers will not effect the behavior of this endangered species. -- There are multiple contradictions within different parts of the DEIS. One example is the conflicting ideas from practiced scientists regarding the presence of anchialine ponds. Dr. Pat Hart's biological analysis (Appendix C) states that the coastal area contains numerous freshwater and anchialine ponds, whereas the analysis on marine and pond environments (Appendix J)determines that the ponds lack both physical and biological attributes of anchialine status. The Marine Research Consultants, Inc. conveniently fail to mention what these so called"attributes"might be. In addition, in defense of development against the Endangered Species Act, the DEIS states that no "threatened or endangered plant species were detected" (see 6-2). On the contrary, Dr. Hart's biological analysis(Appendix C) clearly states (and even graphs)the presence of the federally listed endangered Loulu palm,Pritchardia affinis, within the Coastal Zone A. Regardless if the Loulu palms were planted by humans or grew there naturally, they are federally protected and need not be ignored. -- In Appendix L, Group 70 International, Inc. attempts to address the idea of beach carrying capacity. This report is vague, and its statistics are highly insignificant. How can you accurately portray the social opinion on appropriate carrying capacity by surveying only 5 individuals? This is yet another classic example of bad science. -- From my readings, I was under the impression that a thorough Social Impact Assessment(SIA)was part of the environmental impact assessment process. As laid out by Van Willigen(1986), community knowledge of the project is a critical factor