The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to name over one-quarter of Kaua’i’s land area, and a section of Ni’ihau, as critical habitats for endangered species met strong opposition at a public meeting held Thursday night at the Hanapepe Neighborhood
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to name over one-quarter of Kaua’i’s land area, and a section of Ni’ihau, as critical habitats for endangered species met strong opposition at a public meeting held Thursday night at the Hanapepe Neighborhood Center.
Council Chairman Ron Kouchi opened the meeting by saying he would like to see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state Department of Land and Natural Resources cooperate on a plan for Kaua’i, and for the FWS to change their proposal based on citizens’ concerns.
Kouchi called the actions of the FWS “insulting” to the people of Kaua’i, because nothing seemed to be changed following February’s heated public hearing at the Radisson Hotel. According to Kouchi, the public has growing mistrust and suspicions of the critical habitat proposal.
“Part of the suspicion is that (the FWS) is so afraid of being in violation of the court order that they’ll add more instead of doing less and being in scrutiny of the court,” Kouchi said.
The FWS is under federal court order to create habitat for endangered species following a suit by Earthjustice, the legal action arm of the Sierra Club.
“We’re all for supporting species, native plants…We need to have a collaborative effort with (the FWS),” Kouchi said, “…We’re not against critical habitat.”
The DNLR has a common-sense plan to use (lands) responsibly while preserving what we want to preserve, Kouchi said, adding that the FWS apparently has no plans to cooperate with the DNLR.
Concerned Citizens of Kauai and Niihau’s chairwoman pro tem Betty Chandler fielded discussion questions from hunters and other Kaua’i residents. Chandler’s group organized the meeting.
Most of the lands in the proposal are located on the Westside of Kaua’i.
“I think we will have an effect…I am optimistic; I will never give up,” Chandler said.
“(The FWS) don’t give a damn about you or me…all they care about is the land,” said Bernard Pereira, a local hunter.
Tony Pereira, another hunter, said he thinks the biggest problem is lack of money and manpower. He said that Kaua’i should educate hunters, trail bike riders, hikers and other land users in the value and heritage of the land. People would be willing to help if they knew more about the land, he said.
“Hunters are the best caretakers of the land. Without proper management, we’ll lose the plant species they’re trying to save in the first place. If we leave (the lands) alone, wild animals will probably destroy the native plants we’re trying to save,” Kouchi said.
State Senator Jonathan Chun is also against the critical habitat proposal. In a letter to Paul Henson, FWS Honolulu field supervisor, Chun named several reasons for his opposition: Lack of a suitable habitat was not identified as threatening to species’ survival; excess designation of critical habitat areas could potentially do more harm than good; lack of scientific support for expanded critical habitat designations. Lastly, Chun stated that landowners would have to spend their own money to disprove the FWS, thus unfairly transferring the FWS’ obligations to landowners.
Congresswoman Patsy Mink has also expressed her opposition to what she called an “excessive federal landgrab” in letters to newly-appointed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Steve Williams and Henson dated March 21. Mink said she recommends a petition be delivered to the U.S. District Court to allow six more months of further scientific research before allowing the designation.
The FWS maintains that “activities such as farming, grazing, logging, hunting and other recreational uses generally are not affected by critical habitat designation, even if the landowner’s property is within the geographical boundaries of critical habitat.”
However, if any federal agency has any part in licensing, funding, or permitting any activity on the critical habitat, that agency must ensure the activity does not jeopardize the survival, management or reproduction of any endangered species on that land.
Kapua Sproat of the Conservation Council of Hawaii in Honolulu, who wasn’t at the meeting in Hanapepe, said that misinformation about critical habitats may be adding to public fears of a “federal land grab.”
Sproat explained that the federal habitat is like zoning: an overlay over existing land. The critical habitat will offer educational benefits for the public and developers; they will be able to better plan community improvements by learning which lands are protected.
If you think about your daily life and separate out the activities that require federal permission, most individuals won’t be affected by the critical habitat, she said.
“A lot of hunters are concerned about being able to hunt…there are some areas that have to be fenced off and specially taken care of,” Sproat said, “The Fish and Wildlife Service will have to respond to those who are concerned.”
The critical habitat designation will not affect traditional land use, or current collection and usage methods of plants, and restrictions will not be placed on individuals, but on federal agencies, Sproat added. She said anyone who wants to use land on the critical habitat area must consult with Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure the activity will not adversely affect the habitat or endangered/threatened species.
“I would encourage people to learn more about what designation of critical habitat means,” Sproat said, “It’s not like the feds are going to come in and take away the land. No land is being taken away.”
Another meeting of opponents of the critical habitat proposal is set for Thursday, April 4, at 7 p.m., at the Kaumakani Recreation Center (across Thrifty Mart).
