Showing posts with label Coral Reef. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coral Reef. Show all posts

Monday, September 12, 2011

Coral Reefs 'Will Be Gone by End of the Century

Published on Sunday, September 11, 2011 by the Independent/UK

They will be the first entire ecosystem to be destroyed by human activity, says top UN scientist
by Andrew Marszal

Coral reefs are on course to become the first ecosystem that human activity will eliminate entirely from the Earth, a leading United Nations scientist claims. He says this event will occur before the end of the present century, which means that there are children already born who will live to see a world without coral.

Australia's Great Barrier Reef is the planet's largest reef system and one of the seven natural wonders of the world, but it may not survive the century.The claim is made in a book published tomorrow, which says coral reef ecosystems are very likely to disappear this century in what would be "a new first for mankind – the 'extinction' of an entire ecosystem". Its author, Professor Peter Sale, studied the Great Barrier Reef for 20 years at the University of Sydney. He currently leads a team at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.

The predicted decline is mainly down to climate change and ocean acidification, though local activities such as overfishing, pollution and coastal development have also harmed the reefs. The book, Our Dying Planet, published by University of California Press, contains further alarming predictions, such as the prospect that "we risk having no reefs that resemble those of today in as little as 30 or 40 more years".

"We're creating a situation where the organisms that make coral reefs are becoming so compromised by what we're doing that many of them are going to be extinct, and the others are going to be very, very rare," Professor Sale says. "Because of that, they aren't going to be able to do the construction which leads to the phenomenon we call a reef. We've wiped out a lot of species over the years. This will be the first time we've actually eliminated an entire ecosystem."

Coral reefs are important for the immense biodiversity of their ecosystems. They contain a quarter of all marine species, despite covering only 0.1 per cent of the world's oceans by area, and are more diverse even than the rainforests in terms of diversity per acre, or types of different phyla present.

Recent research into coral reefs' highly diverse and unique chemical composition has found many compounds useful to the medical industry, which could be lost if present trends persist. New means of tackling cancer developed from reef ecosystems have been announced in the past few months, including a radical new treatment for leukemia derived from a reef-dwelling sponge. Another possible application of compounds found in coral as a powerful sunblock has also been mooted.

And coral reefs are of considerable economic value to humans, both as abundant fishing resources and – often more lucratively – as tourist destinations. About 850 million people live within 100km of a reef, of which some 275 million are likely to depend on the reef ecosystems for nutrition or livelihood. Fringing reefs can also help to protect low-lying islands and coastal regions from extreme weather, absorbing waves before they reach vulnerable populations.

Carbon emissions generated by human activity, especially our heavy use of fossils fuels, are the biggest cause of the anticipated rapid decline, impacting on coral reefs in two main ways. Climate change increases ocean surface temperatures, which have already risen by 0.67C in the past century. This puts corals under enormous stress and leads to coral bleaching, where the photosynthesising algae on which the reef-building creatures depend for energy disappear. Deprived of these for even a few weeks, the corals die.

On top of this comes ocean acidification. Roughly one-third of the extra carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere is absorbed through the ocean surface, acidifying shallower waters. A more recently recognized problem in tropical reef systems, the imbalance created makes it harder for reef organisms to retrieve the minerals needed to build their carbonaceous skeletons. "If they can't build their skeletons – or they have to put a lot more energy into building them relative to all the other things they need to do, like reproduce – it has a detrimental effect on the coral reefs," says Paul Johnston of the University of Exeter, and founder of the UK's Greenpeace Research Laboratories.

An important caveat to the book's predictions is that the corals themselves – the tiny organisms largely responsible for creating reefs – may be lucky enough to survive the destruction, if past mass extinction episodes are anything to go by. "Although corals are ancient animals and have been around for hundreds of millions of years, there have been periods of reefs, and periods where there are no reefs," explains Mark Spalding, of the US-based environmental group Nature Conservancy, and the University of Cambridge. "When climatic conditions are right they build these fantastic structures, but when they're not they wait in the wings, in little refuges, as a rather obscure invertebrate."

The gaps between periods in which reefs are present have been long even in geological terms, described in the book as "multimillion-year pauses". And reef disappearance has tended to precede wider mass extinction events, offering an ominous "canary in the environmental coal mine" for the present day, according to the author. "People have been talking about current biodiversity loss as the Holocene mass extinction, meaning that the losses of species that are occurring now are in every way equivalent to the mass extinctions of the past," Professor Sale says. "I think there is every possibility that is what we are seeing."

About 20 per cent of global coral reefs have already been lost in the past few decades. Mass bleaching events leading to widespread coral death are a relatively recent phenomenon; though scientists have been studying coral reefs in earnest since the 1950s, mass bleaching was first observed only in 1983.

Dr Spalding, who witnessed the catastrophic 1998 mass bleaching in the Indian Ocean first-hand, says: "It was a shocking wake-up call for the world of science, and a shocking wake-up for me to be actually there as we watched literally 80 to 90 per cent of all the corals die on the reefs of the Seychelles and other islands in a few weeks." That single event destroyed 16 per cent of the world's coral.

But according to the book's author: "The 1998 bleaching was spectacular because it was so extensive and so conspicuous. But there have been mass bleachings that have been global since then: 2005 was bad; 2010 was bad. The visual appearance is not nearly as severe as it was in 1998, simply because there is less coral around."

These dramatic episodes coincide with unusual weather patterns such as El Niño, but are increasing in severity and frequency due to climate change. As such, tackling global warming is the most urgent solution advocated by the book. "If we can keep CO2 concentrations below 450 parts per million we would be able to save something resembling coral reefs," Professor Sale says. "They wouldn't be the coral reefs of the 1950s or 1960s, but they would be recognizably coral reefs, and they would function as reefs." The current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is about 390 parts per million, but few experts believe it will remain below 500 for long.

There are signs that local conservation efforts can make a difference. Alex Rogers, professor of conservation biology at Oxford University, says: "We know for certain that corals subject to low levels of stress are much more able to recover. So if you take away pressures like overfishing of coral reefs and pollution, this has profound effects on recovery. But what we're really doing is buying time for many of these ecosystems. If climate change continues at its current rate, they will be done for eventually."

Though not all scientists agree with the precise timescales set out by the book, the crisis is clear. "When you're talking about the destruct-ion of an entire ecosystem within one human generation, there might be some small differences in the details – it is a dramatic image and a dramatic statement," Professor Rogers says. "But the overall message we agree with. People are not taking on board the sheer speed of the changes we're seeing."

'Our Dying Planet' (University of California Press) will be published in North America tomorrow

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Connecting Aegis Dots Between Jeju, Okinawa, Guam, Hawai'i

September 5, 2011 by from DMZhawaii.org

Koohan Paik, co-author of the Superferry Chronicles and member of the Kaua’i Alliance for Peace and Social Justice wrote an excellent op ed in the Garden Island newspaper connecting the dots between the military expansion at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kaua’i, the struggle to stop a naval base in Jeju, South Korea, and protest movements in Okinawa and Guam.

True defenders

When I was a child in South Korea during the 1960s, we lived under the repressive dictatorship of Park Chung-hee. Anyone out after 10 p.m. curfew could be arrested. Anyone who tried to protest the government disappeared. A lot of people died fighting for democracy and human rights.

Today, the South Korean people carry in living memory the supreme struggles that forged the freedom they currently enjoy. And after all they’ve sacrificed, they are not going to give that freedom up.

So it is no surprise that the tenacious, democracy-loving Koreans have been protesting again — this time for over four years, non-stop, day and night. They are determined to prevent construction of a huge military base on S. Korea’s Jeju Island that will cement over a reef in an area so precious it contains three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

This eco-rich reef has not only fed islanders for millennia, but it has also been the “habitat” for Jeju’s lady divers who are famous for staying beneath the surface for astonishing periods of time, before coming up with all manner of treasures. Even during South Korea’s times of unspeakable poverty, subtropical Jeju Island was always so abundant with natural resources and beauty that no one ever felt “impoverished” there.

There happens to be a very strong connection between Jeju’s current troubles and business-as-usual on the Garden Isle. You see, the primary purpose of Jeju’s unwanted base is to port Aegis destroyer warships. And it is right here, at Kaua‘i’s Pacific Missile Range Facility, that all product testing takes place for the Aegis missile manufacturers.

On Aug. 29, when Sen. Dan Inouye was here to dedicate a new Aegis testing site, he said, “We are not testing to kill, but to defend.” It would have been more accurate if Inouye had said, “We are not testing to kill, but to increase profits for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, no matter how many people are oppressed or how many reefs are destroyed.”

Four days later, on Sept. 2, I got a panicked call from a Korean friend that there had been a massive crackdown on the peace vigil in Gangjung village to protect Jeju’s reef from the Aegis destroyer project.

More than 1,000 South Korean police in head-to-toe riot gear descended upon men and women of all ages blockading construction crews from access to the site. At least 50 protestors were arrested, including villagers, Catholic priests, college students, visiting artists and citizen journalists. Several were wounded and hospitalized. My friend told me, “We fought so hard for democracy. And now this. It’s just like dictatorship times.”

Another reason the Koreans are so angry is that their government has been telling them that the Aegis technology will protect them from North Korea. But Aegis missiles launching from Jeju are useless against North Korea, because North Korean missiles fly too low. In a 1999 report to the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon verified that the Aegis system “could not defend the northern two-thirds of South Korea against the low flying short range Taepodong ballistic missiles.”

So if Aegis is no good against North Korea, why build the base? Again, this is not about defense, this is about selling missiles (and increasing profits for Samsung and other major contractors on the base construction job).

There is a strong similarity between resistance on Jeju (where a recent poll showed 95 percent of islanders are opposed to the base) and concurrent uprisings on Guam and Okinawa, as well. All three islands are slated for irreversible destruction to make way for Aegis destroyer berthing.

And who wouldn’t protest? Like us, these are island peoples who care passionately for their reefs, ocean ecosystems and fisheries. I have heard certain Jeju Islanders say they will fight to the death to protect their resources.

Today, the mayor of Gangjung himself, along with many others, languish in prison because of their uncompromising stance against the Aegis base. Fortunately, people across the Korean peninsula and beyond, are heading to Jeju to support the resistance movement.

Without peaceful warriors like them, there would be no more reefs, no more coral, no more fish, no more nothing. They are our true defenders, not the missile manufacturers, as Inouye’s sham logic would have us believe.

As the Pentagon conspicuously ramps up militarization in the Asia-Pacific region, individuals of good conscious should pursue de-militarization. In the words of Aletha Kaohi, “Look to within and get rid of the ‘opala, or rubbish.”

Koohan Paik, Kilauea

Monday, April 26, 2010

Environmental Protection of Bases

Published on Monday, April 26, 2010 by Foreign Policy in Focus
Environmental Protection of Bases?
by David Vine

Just weeks before today’s Earth Day, and for the second time in little more than a year, environmental groups have teamed with governments to create massive new marine protection areas across wide swaths of the world’s oceans. Both times, however, there’s been something (pardon the pun) fishy about these benevolent-sounding efforts at environmental protection.

Most recently, on April 1, the British government announced the creation of the world’s largest marine protection area in the Indian Ocean’s Chagos Archipelago, which would include a ban on commercial fishing in an area larger than California and twice the size of Britain. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband called it “a major step forward for protecting the oceans.

A representative for the Pew Charitable Trusts—which helped spearhead the effort along with groups including the Marine Conservation Society, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and Greenpeace—compared the ecological diversity of the Chagos islands to the Galapagos and the Great Barrier Reef. The Pew representative described the establishment of the protected area as “a historic victory for global ocean conservation.” Indeed, this was the second such victory for Pew, which also supported the creation, in the waning days of the George W. Bush administration, of three large marine protection areas in the Pacific Ocean, around some of the Hawai’ian islands and the islands of Guam, Tinian, and Saipan.

The timing of the announcements for both the Indian Ocean and Pacific marine protection areas—on the eve of upcoming British parliamentary elections and in the days before Bush left office when he was trying to salvage a legacy—suggests that there’s more here than the celebratory announcements would suggest.

A Base Issue
Both marine protection areas provide safe homes for sea turtles, sharks, breeding sea birds, and coral reefs. But they are also home to major U.S. military bases. Chagos’s largest island, Diego Garcia, hosts a secretive billion-dollar Air Force and Navy base that has been part of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. The Pacific protection areas are home to U.S. bases on Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Rota, Farallon de Medinilla, Wake Island, and Johnston Island.

In both cases, the otherwise “pristine” protected environments carve out significant exceptions for the military. In Chagos, the British government has said, “We nor the US would want the creation of a marine protected area to have any impact on the operational capability of the base on Diego Garcia. For this reason…it may be necessary to consider the exclusion of Diego Garcia and its three-mile territorial waters.” In the Pacific, the Bush administration stressed that “nothing” in the protected areas “impairs or otherwise affects the activities of the U.S. Department of Defense.”

The incongruity of military bases in the middle of environmental protection areas is particularly acute since many military installations cause serious damage to local environments. As Miriam Pemberton and I warned in the wake of Bush’s announcement, “Such damage includes the blasting of pristine coral reefs, clear-cutting of virgin forests, deploying underwater sonar dangerous to marine life, leaching carcinogenic pollutants into the soil and seas from lax toxic waste storage and military accidents, and using land and sea for target practice, decimating ecosystems with exploded and unexploded munitions. Guam alone is home to 19 Superfund sites.”

Similarly, the base on Diego Garcia was built by blasting and dredging the island’s coral-lined lagoon, using bulldozers and chains to uproot coconut trees from the ground and paving a significant proportion of the island in asphalt. Since its construction, the island has seen more than one million gallons of jet fuel leaks, water fouled with diesel fuel sludge, the warehousing of depleted uranium-tipped bunker buster bombs, and the likely storage of nuclear weapons.

For all the benefits that marine protection areas might bring, governments are using environmentalism as a cover to protect the long-term life of environmentally harmful bases. The designation also helps governments hold onto strategic territories. Indeed, all of the Pacific and Indian Ocean islands involved are effectively colonies, including the Chagos Archipelago, which Britain refers to as the British Indian Ocean Territory and which was illegally detached from Mauritius during decolonization in the 1960s.

Ratifying Expulsion
The environmental cover-up goes deeper. In addition to the Mauritian sovereignty claim on Chagos, the islands are also claimed by their former indigenous inhabitants, the Chagossians, whom the U.S. and British governments forcibly removed from their homeland during the base’s creation in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Since their expulsion, the Chagossians have been struggling for the right to return and proper compensation. Three times since 2000, the British High Court has ruled the removal unlawful, only to have Britain’s highest court overturn the lower-court rulings in 2008. The Chagossians have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights and expect hearings to begin this summer.

Again, the timing of the announcement of the Chagos marine protection area is far from coincidental. It could cement forever the Chagossians’ exile no matter the ruling of the European court. “The conservation groups have fallen into a trap,” explained Chagossian Roch Evenor, secretary of the UK Chagos Support Association. “They are being used by the government to prevent us returning.”

Others agree. In a letter to Greenpeace UK, Mauritian activist Ram Seegobin wrote, “Clearly, the British government is preparing a fall-back plan; if they lose the case in Europe, then there will be another ‘reason’ for denying the banished people their right of return.”

British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, director of the human rights organization Reprieve, was even more direct: “The truth is that no Chagossian has anything like equal rights with even the warty sea slug.”

While the Pew Charitable Trusts, a foundation created by the children of one of the founders of Sun Oil Company, has been working behind the scenes for three years with British officials on the marine protection areas, other environmentalists have opposed the plan. “Conservation is a laudable goal,” Catherine Philp argued recently in The Times of London, “but it is a hollow and untruthful one when decided on behalf of the true guardians of that land who were robbed of it; not for the protection of the environment, but for a cheap media win and the easy benefit of the military-industrial machine.”

It did not have to be this way. The Chagossians, as one of their leaders, Olivier Bancoult, has said, once “lived in harmony with our natural environment until we were forcibly removed to make way for a nuclear military base.” The U.K. and U.S. governments could correct this injustice and protect the environment at the same time by finally allowing the Chagossians to return and serve as the proper guardians of their environment. It is not too late to correct this mistake. It is not too late to prevent the good name of environmentalism from being used to compound injustices that have been covered up for too long.

David Vine is assistant professor of anthropology at American University in Washington, DC, the author of Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press, 2009), and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Bordallo challenges DEIS

Bordallo challenges DEIS

Wednesday, 17 February 2010 03:37
by Therese Hart | Variety News Staff

Congressional report lists flaws of the draft study

THE military buildup must be delayed, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo said last night, acknowledging that the draft environmental impact statement has serious deficiencies that need to be addressed.

In her congressional report to the people, Bordallo identified six areas of concern regarding the draft study, including and the Navy’s desire to acquire additional private and public lands.

“We will challenge the Navy to conduct the military buildup on their existing land. The Navy should better utilize its land and consider moving housing and some support facilities for the Marine aviation unit to Andersen Air Force Base,” Bordallo said.

Secondly, an area of concern is the proposed firing range at Pagat and Sasayan. “If private property owners choose not to lease or sell their land I will support them and oppose any effort by the Department of Defense to use eminent domain to acquire that land. I recognize the input of private landowners and the organization ‘We Are Guahan’ on this issue.

A third area of concern is the proposed alternative for an aircraft carrier transient berth in Apra Harbor. “The plans for the carrier berth in Apra Harbor will result in a significant loss of coral. I will challenge the Navy to identify other alternatives that will minimize coral damage and that will take advantage of currently dredged areas such as Kilo or Delta wharves among others. I thank Senator Guthertz for her input,” said the congresswoman.

Fourth, she noted the need for federal assistance for improving civilian infrastructure on Guam to support the military buildup.

“While the DEIS draft report recognizes the need to improve civilian infrastructure it does not provide a clear strategy that details how the federal government will assist Guam,” Bordallo said as she opposed the Navy’s plan to drill 22 new wells in the north “until an independent assessment is made about the capacity of the northern aquifer.”

The fifth area of concern is the lack of a comprehensive plan for the housing of guest workers and providing for their health care needs in a manner that does not further overwhelm Guam’s local infrastructure and health care system.

“Let me be clear about this issue – we must do all that we can to train our local workforce and hire them before we utilize guest workers. Any proposal to house guest workers outside the gates must address their impact on civilian infrastructure such as water, wastewater and power. We cannot allow guest worker housing off-base to cause the faucets to run dry or power outages in our homes.”

Socioeconomic

Finally, Bordallo said, the socioeconomic portion of the draft study must be completely rewritten “in order to truly address the socioeconomic impacts of the military buildup.”

She said she will encourage the Navy to work closely with the University of Guam, the Guam Community College and the Department of Chamorro Affairs to develop a better understanding of the cultural issues and to formulate a comprehensive plan to support programs which preserve and promote Chamorro culture and language and I thank Fuetsan Famaloan for this input.”

On the issue of war claims, Bordallo said that she has made significant progress and that “we are closer than ever to passing this bill and we will continue to build on our progress.”

Bordallo spoke strongly on Guam’s quest for self-determination saying that Guam must refocus on the process to achieve decolonization and improve its political status with the U.S.

Projects

Bordallo also said she was concerned about the one of the assumption in the draft impact report that all projects will be completed by 2014.

“It would not be an exaggeration to say that this draft EIS has done more harm than good. The DEIS has not accurately identified the impacts on Guam and it has exaggerated some impacts based on a false assumption that all projects will be completed by 2014,” said the congresswoman.

“This flawed assumption has drawn consequences and conclusions that are not sustainable and not supported by anyone. Nobody wants 80,000 additional people on Guam in 2014,” Bordallo said. “We will do everything that we can, federally and locally, to stop that from happening. As I said before, we have our foot on the brakes. I will not support appropriations and authorizations that will result in a construction pace that brings 80,000 people to Guam in 2014.”

Friday, February 19, 2010

PNC :: Congressional Report: Bordallo Details Her Objections To The Buildup

PNC :: Congressional Report: Bordallo Details Her Objections To The Buildup

Monday, 15 February 2010

Guam - Guam Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo detailed her objections to the military buildup in her annual Congressional Report before the Guam Legislature Tuesday night.

Speaking for just over a half hour, Bordallo reiterated her opposition to any attempt by the military to use eminent domain to gain access to additional island lands and she challenged DoD to complete the buildup within its current footprint.

The Congresswoman also raised objections to the Navy's plans to dredge acres of coral in Apra Harbor to make way for a new berth for a nuclear powered Aircraft carrier. Instead she suggested that there are alternatives like berthing any visiting carriers at Kilo Warf.

She also criticised the federal governmnet for not recognizing the severe strain the buildup will put on the island's civilian infrastructure and called on Washington to share the burden.

And Bordallo said she supports the Governor's efforts to delay the buildup to allow more time for the island to prepare for the impact.

Written by : Kevin Kerrigan

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Group aims to clear up misconceptions

Group aims to clear up misconceptions

By Amritha Alladi • Pacific Daily News • February 15, 2010

They've been to several of the draft Environmental Impact Statement meetings, and even arranged tours of some of Guam's natural and historic sites.

We Are Guåhan, a grassroots organization that formed after the draft EIS was released Nov. 20, 2009, has been advocating to keep the public informed about the military buildup, according to the group. With their mailing, phone and Facebook lists combined, the group comprises about 5,000 individuals, members of the group have said.

Four of them sat down with the Pacific Daily News last week to dispel what they felt were misconceptions about their group: Genevieve Won Pat-Borja, a special education teacher with the Guam Department of Education; Cara Flores-Mays, a small business owner; Marie Auyong, a nonprofit administrator; and Victoria-Lola Leon Guerrero, an English instructor at the University of Guam.

With just three days left to comment on the draft EIS, the group is urging people to comment on the draft EIS.

Question: Who is We Are Guåhan?

Flores-Mays: We are a group of concerned individuals and families, one of our goals is to get information out to the public. I don't think that's our only goal.... We're committed to a sustainable future.

Q: Would you say the group is against the buildup?

Auyong: I think that's not necessarily that black and white. I think there are a lot of people who have very nuanced perspectives on the buildup itself, ... and I think right now our project is the DEIS commenting period, and the process by which it's come about. ... We have found that information has been lacking, that perhaps some institutions have not been forthright about that and so we're trying to fill that void.

Flores-Mays: A lot of our events are aimed at communicating facts straight out of the EIS. ... So if we're against the buildup, then the EIS would be against the buildup as well.

Won Pat-Borja: If it does seem we're presenting a lot of negative information, it's because ... there are quite a large number of negative impacts.

(According to information posted on the group's Web site, taken from the draft EIS, those negative impacts include the dredging of 25 acres of reef which would eliminate some endangered turtle species, the taking of 2,500 acres of land, and the loss of 26,000 jobs from 2015 through 2017.)

Q: Are there places where you see Guam can benefit from the buildup?

Flores-Mays: I think that there's quite a bit of information out there about how Guam can benefit. However, there's always the positive and never the negative, and so I guess it may come across that we're anti-buildup because we communicate the rest of the information. ... These are points that we've taken from the economists and biologists and so we have actually discussed the benefits of the buildup.

(According to the Defense Department document, Guam's unemployment rate is expected to fall to 4 percent when Guam residents and off-islanders start taking on jobs associated with the military buildup. About 33,000 jobs for civilian workers will be created by the 2014 peak, and an additional 6,150 jobs will be provided on a "more permanent basis" thereafter.)

Q: Do you think that the buildup can be done, but just in a different way?

Flores-Mays: These are personal questions. As an organization, I think that if we were to answer these questions, they would be personal answers, ... it would be a misrepresentation.

Leon Guerrero: For so long this community has been told this is a done deal. No one should have to be told that they have no say in their future.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Guam legislature adopts resolution on military buildup plan

Guam legislature adopts resolution on military buildup plan

Feb 11 02:38 AM US/Eastern

HAGATNA, Guam, Feb. 11 (AP) - (Kyodo) — The Guam legislature unanimously adopted a resolution Thursday urging the U.S. military and other relevant authorities to drastically amend the current military buildup plan for the island, citing many "flaws" including the impact on the environment and the threat to islanders' property.

The resolution also called for more information on the relocation of U.S. military personnel from Japan's Okinawa Prefecture and for a "town hall" meeting with President Barack Obama on the issue when he visits the Pacific island next month.

According to Assembly Speaker Judith Won Pat, the legislature's main areas of concern in the detailed buildup plan, called the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, include the possibility of land seizure, large-scale dredging of coral reefs and the lack of thought given to the social impact of the buildup.

Most islanders came face to face with these issues for the first time when the Joint Guam Program Office, a U.S. military task force handling the Guam buildup, released the statement in November, Won Pat said. She has complained to the JGPO about the fact that only three months have been allowed for public comment.

The resolution was nonbinding but will be sent to Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Obama and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, among others.

Meanwhile, the legislators handed a draft resolution to members of a Japanese government fact-finding delegation during their visit to the legislature in Hagatna the same day.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Guthertz: Carrier Should Use Kilo Warf Rather Than Dredge Coral

Guthertz: Carrier Should Use Kilo Warf Rather Than Dredge Coral

Tuesday, 09 February 2010

Guam - Rather than dredge 36 acres of coral in Apra Harbor, Senator Judi Guthertz is proposing that the Navy continue to use Kilo Warf for any visiting Aircraft Carriers, and then moor ammunition ships out in Apra Harbor.

Visiting carriers currently use Kilo Warf, located near the tip of Orote Point, near Gab Gab Beach, but its primary purpose is for loading and off-loading ammunition.

However, the military's Draft Environmental Impact Statement argues that a separate berthing is now needed because of plans to extend the stay of visiting aircraft carriers to a total of 63 days a year and that would interfere with the "munitions mission" of Kilo Wharf.

Read Guthertz's Coment Paper on Aircraft Carrier Berthing
http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/images/pdf/gutpap.pdf

But in a "Comment Paper on Aircraft Carrier Berthing", Guthertz counters that "the assertion that the situation will become too difficult is not proven. It merely comes down to a matter of having a scheduling challenge."

In a release, the Chairperson of the Legislature's Buildup Committee, argues that: “The solution is to moor the ammunition ship at one of the deep draft buoys in outer Apra Harbor, where the Maritime Pre-position Ships (MPS) moor, whenever there is an overlap in their schedules. "

Guthertz says “This location for the ammunition ship would only be needed for those days when the aircraft carrier is moored to Kilo Wharf. The aircraft carriers would still be able to visit Guam at an enhanced frequency and duration compared to now.”

The Senator says it would be "a 'win-win' soultion for both.

"The aircraft carriers would have more ship visit days in Guam as desired by the military, and the coral would remain untouched as desired by the civilians.”

Written by : News Release

We Are Guahan Group Sees Proposed Apra Harbor Dredge Site First Hand

We Are Guahan Group Sees Proposed Apra Harbor Dredge Site First Hand

Tuesday, 09 February 2010

Guam - Roughly over 100 people showed up to the we are Guahan Coalition's trip to Apra harbor on Sunday.

We are Guahan has raised concerns about the military's proposed dredging of Apra harbor for transient carrier berthing. They have sited various environmental concerns related to the dredging of coral. Event coordinator Cara Flores-Mays says the trip went well and opened the eyes of a lot of people.

She says "It's difficult to justify the planned destruction of this unique coral habitat. It's especially difficult to justify that action when the long-term outlook for coral reefs around the world is quite bleak"

The We Are Guahan group was accompanined by a couple of marine bioligists who noted that the dredging would reduce guam's marine bio-diversity and could destroy some unique coral species that have yet to be identified and may even be unique to Guam. Mays says "It's an asset to Guam but not just to Guam but this is really a place that biologists around the world can appreciate. It's our responsibility not only as citizens of this community but citizens of the world in general to protect it."

Written by : Clynt Ridgell

EPA's silence on dredging questioned

EPA's silence on dredging questioned

Posted: Feb 09, 2010 2:51 PM
Updated: Feb 09, 2010 2:51 PM

by Nick Delgado

Guam - For the most part it was smooth sailing for George Lai during his confirmation hearing to sit on the Guam Environmental Protection Agency's board of directors this morning. What did hit rough waters was concerns regarding why Guam EPA has not been more vocal on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the military's plans to dredge Apra Harbor.

Guam EPA's Air and Land Division Chief Conchita Taitano assured senators they are not under a gag order and that instead they are still compiling information before presenting to the Governor's Office. She said, "I can assure you that in our weekly technical meetings, all of the division heads have shared our concerns for each of the volumes. The issue regarding dredging, we have concerns on that because of lack of information."

According to the DEIS, the military plans to dredge about 36 acres of Apra Harbor in order to make space for an air craft carrier to pass through to Polaris Point.

Snorkeling outing showcases Guam's habitat

Snorkeling outing showcases Guam's habitat

Posted: Feb 08, 2010 4:32 PM
Updated: Feb 08, 2010 6:31 PM

by Heather Hauswirth

Guam - Members of the We Are Guahan Coalition sponsored a four-hour snorkeling trip to outer Apra Harbor on Sunday so that residents could see for themselves the rare coral and fish whose habitat will be disrupted by proposed dredging cited in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in order to accommodate a pier for an aircraft carrier.

While parts of Apra Harbor are open to the public, this may not be the case for long. On Sunday more than 100 snorkelers scoped out the habitat that thrives in jade and western shoals. We Are Guahan member and Southern High Social studies teacher Collin Smith says there's no doubt that the construction of an aircraft carrier pier will have dire consequences on the marine habitat.

"Some of the reef will actually be gone. Some of it will be gone directly taken out and that's it. Some of the reef will be killed when the sand spreads out in the water and impacts other areas. In the DEIS they say 39 acres will be directly impacted, but it's more like 70 acres will be directly impacted," he noted. "To give you a sense of the scale of this, 39 acres is 21 Micronesia Malls."

While the DEIS states that existing fish stocks can easily relocate to another habitat, marine biologists say otherwise. They argue that removing any coral especially older colonies - permanently reduces the number of surrounding fish.

Legislative Speaker Judi Won Pat, who saw some of the 110 different species of coral herself during the dive, won't allow dredging in Apra Harbor without a fight. "It was an experience I've never had diving or snorkeling here. The large coral heads I'm sure took so many years to grow to that size. There are a lot of fish down there, so it is a habitat for our marine life so I surely don't want to see anything like that disturbed," she said.

For research psychologist and University of Guam professor Mike Elhart, he questions whether or not alternatives are even possible. "Should it not happen? Do we not need to be careful with defense? Of course we do, but the question is can they do it some other way. Could they, for example, set it up further out in the port, another part of the port where it wouldn't damage as much reef that's public access? I don't know the solution, but dredging deeper areas here doesn't seem to be a reasonable way to do it," he said.

Guthertz drafts strategy for coral dredging

Guthertz drafts strategy for coral dredging

Posted: Feb 08, 2010 2:15 PM
Updated: Feb 08, 2010 2:15 PM

by Nick Delgado

Guam - Senator Judi Guthertz has proposed a solution to concerns raised about the dredging of 36 acres of coral in Apra Harbor to accommodate an aircraft carrier berthing. The Democrat lawmaker has suggested that ammunition ships be moored at one of the deep draft buoys in outer Apra Harbor where maritime pre-position ships moor.

Guthertz stresses that because an aircraft carrier is not expected to spend more than 63 days a year on the island, using kilo wharf would be a better solution. "If there's an overlap between the ammunition ships that use Kilo Wharf and the carrier, then they need to take turns. Either the ammunition ships can be out in the water and stay while the carrier comes in and vise-versa," said the senator.

Paddler: Coral more important than carriers

Paddler: Coral more important than carriers

By Amritha Alladi • Pacific Daily News aalladi@guampdn.com • February 8, 2010

Guam may have been identified last week as an upcoming hub for U.S. national security in the Asia-Pacific region, but one Guam group feels dredging of the Apra Harbor for military projects isn't necessary to fulfill that goal.

According to Collin Smith, vice president of Marianas Paddle Sports Racing Association and supporter of We Are Guahan, the aircraft carrier wharf proposed to be built in the Apra Harbor would only lengthen the stay of carriers while destroying rare coral reefs. The Defense Department could consider other possible locations for the ammunitions wharf or adjust the scheduling of its aircraft carrier traffic so a longer stay isn't necessary, Smith suggested.

He was responding to questions about a reef tour arranged by We Are Guahan yesterday.
About 40 people paddled out to join a boat chartered by We Are Guahan to explore the Jade Shoals and Western Shoals yesterday, he said.

It was an educational opportunity for the group to inform the public on how the reef would be affected if the dredging takes place, according to Smith.

The group, We Are Guahan, consists of citizen-volunteers working to get the general public "thinking about issues related to the planned U.S. military relocation and buildup in Guam and the CNMI," according to their Web site, www.weareguahan.com.
Biologists were available at yesterday's reef tour to talk about marine life in the area, Smith said.

"It has unique type of coral formations you can't find anywhere else in the Mariana Islands," he added.

In the DEIS

The military plans to dredge about 2.3 million square feet of sea floor, according to the draft Environmental Impact statement. About 35 percent of that area is covered in coral reef that will be permanently destroyed, the document states.

Among the mitigation measures listed in the document, building an artificial reef structure on another side of the island to provide alternative habitat for the organisms living there, isn't favored by biologists or environmentalists, Smith said.

Another option listed -- reclaiming watershed -- is too massive a project and will probably be negated by Guam's "chronic" fires, Smith said. The mitigation would be worthless in such a case, he said.

"The bottom line is people just need to be aware this reef cannot be duplicated. They cannot duplicate what they take away from here," he said.

"I'm not against them ... using this as a place for the military," he said. "It's just ... they can do better." Smith said. "If they are going to do this, then they need to do a better job of studying its impacts because there are a lot of shortfalls in their study of the impacts."

At the same time, the document shows the new wharf would generate revenue for Guam.
When completed by 2015, aircraft carriers will spend about 63 days a year ported in Guam, according to the draft EIS.

The spending of aircraft personnel is expected to inject about $13 million into the local economy every year once the wharf is built. Stimulus will be about twice as high from 2011 to 2014, when the wharf is under construction, according to the document.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Up close and possible at Western Shoals

Up close and possible at Western Shoals

Monday, 08 February 2010 04:17
by Zita Y. Taitano | Variety News Staff

Guam’s clear and sunny weather yesterday was an opportune time for members of the public advocacy group We are Guahan and others to snorkel an area of Apra Harbor planned for dredging to accommodate a deep draft berth for aircrafts carriers.

Western Shoals is located directly across from the Guam Shipyard between Big Blue Reef, Jade Shoals, and Sasa Bay and is a favored dive spot. The preferred site detailed in the military’s draft environmental impact report is located along the shoreline of Polaris Point.

The group traveled to the marine site and was joined by more than 20 other concerned island residents who paddled in canoes from Family Beach at the Port of Guam area.

The We Are Guahan troop dropped anchor from a small fishing boat boasting a canvas emblazoned with the phrases “We are Guahan” and “We are Ocean.”

The Guam Police Department marine patrol kept a close watch on the activity.

According to Kara Flores Mays, co-coordinator of the tour to visit the threatened underwater habitat, after reading the location was a prime alternative for the military to dredge Apra Harbor the group decided to come see for their selves what was at risk.

“This is an area that is important to a lot of people,” said Flores Mays. “It’s important to divers, it’s important to people who snorkel and as you can see, it’s important to people in all these canoes.

Before a brief overview of the dive site presented by Dave Burnic, a biologist at Guam Coastal Management, Mays added, “It’s important for fishermen and there are a lot of people in our community who really love this area and can’t understand why it is being destroyed.”

The underwater location’s unique biodiversity was explained to the group so they would better understand the impact of dredging the area.

Burnic said at least a 100 species of coral thrive within the harbor, noting in the Caribbean, there are only 55 species identified there thus far.

“There’s are twice as many coral in this harbor as there are across thousands of miles of ocean and in other parts of the world so that’s really special,” the biologist explained.

He commended the organizers for bringing residents to the shoals so they could see firsthand the beauty of the reef and the marine life that depends on the area.

University of Guam Social Work majors Kleine Mallare, 25, of Dededo and Rose Hermoso, of Windward Hills, both felt the tour was very educational.

“I learned a lot especially since it’s my first time out here,” said Mallare. “I didn’t know what was going on.”

“No one can read an 11,000 page document to begin and for (We Are Guahan) to say ‘we can get involved and we’ll subdivide this and there are subcommittees,’ well you learn a little bit of that because it’s going to happen. We need to know and we need to put our input in there,” she said.

Hermoso added they were aware of the reasons for the tour and gave thumbs up to We Are Guahan for organizing the event because it gives them a better understanding of what is in the military’s draft environmental impact statement.

A paddler arose and chanted to ancient ancestors asking for blessings of guardianship over the sea to prevent the dredging.

A similar ceremony was held on board the boat and people were asked to pass two leis among the gathered crowd before Ka’isa Won Pat Borja, son of Gena and Melvin Won Pat Borja and Ma’ase, son of Monaeka De’Oro dropped them overboard in a somber ceremony.

Snorkeling tour in Apra Harbor

Snorkeling tour in Apra Harbor

Posted: Feb 07, 2010 12:24 PM
Updated: Feb 07, 2010 1:07 PM

by Michele Catahay

Guam - Members from the We Are Guahan Coalition took part in a snorkeling educational tour this afternoon at the prime snorkeling areas in Apra Harbor. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the military may need to dredge parts of Apra Harbor to make way for a transient aircraft carrier berth.

Coalition members argue that the harbor is the only protected, deep-water lagoon environment on Guam, which hosts unique reef organisms. The group has already taken hikes to Pagat and have been attending various town hall meetings on the buildup.

PNC :: GovGuam Reaches Out to Students at YOUTHSPEAK

PNC :: GovGuam Reaches Out to Students at YOUTHSPEAK

Saturday, 06 February 2010

Guam - The Office of the Governor, PBS Guam, the Guam Coastal Management Program, the Bureau of Statistics and Plans, and the Guam Build-up Office hosted YOUTHSPEAK today at the Guam Marriot Resort and Spa. This is one of a series of events in the ‘OUR ISLAND, OUR LIVES’ campaign aimed at providing information on how residents can effectively respond to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

During his opening remarks, Governor Camacho shared with students the importance of being involved in the DEIS process.

“These students are our leaders and they can make a difference. We understand they will inherit the results of the decisions we make today,” said Governor Camacho. “We hope each one of these students will take what they’ve learned and share it with their family, friends and fellow classmates.”

During the event, students were divided into small groups and tasked with reading particular sections of the DEIS. Students were further taught how to skim read the DEIS, properly reference a section and submit well-informed actionable comments.

“The event was really successful. Everyone showed great interest in the exercises and brought up issues about the island’s wastewater, coral, destruction of habitats and other proposed items in the DEIS. We encouraged them to return to their schools and help their peers comment before the February 17th deadline,” said Guam Coastal Management Program Manager Vangie Lujan.

‘OUR ISLAND, OUR LIVES’ seeks to provide information on how residents can effectively respond to the DEIS. Additionally, the campaign plans to collect comments regarding the DEIS, which in turn will be submitted to the Department of Defense on behalf of the people of Guam.

For more information, please contact Charlene Calip at 475-9303 or 788-0589 or e-mail charlene.calip@guam.gov

Written by : News Release

Snorkeling trip showcases Apra Harbor

Snorkeling trip showcases Apra Harbor

Posted: Feb 05, 2010 4:04 PM
Updated: Feb 05, 2010 4:04 PM

by Heather Hauswirth

Guam - This Sunday the We Are Guahan Coalition is leading a snorkeling educational tour of the prime snorkeling areas in Apra Harbor. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement states that western and jade shoals will be dredged to create space for an aircraft carrier birthing pier in preparation of the military buildup.

Coalition members argue that the harbor is the only protected, deep-water lagoon environment on Guam, and as such, hosts unique reef organisms as well as unique assemblages of corals, and other reef organisms.

Collin Smith is a social studies teacher at Southern High School, as well as a member of We Are Guahan, and says, "Some of it has been dredged before but the impacts of this dredging will not only impact the old dredging but new areas of coral will be damaged so people need to see it and understand what is at stake."

Those interested can contact Cara Mays or Gen Won-Pat Borja if they would like to get on the boat for some snorkeling in Apra Harbor this Sunday, February 7 from 2-5:45. Tour boat riders must pay $15 per person, which includes snorkel gear, water/ice tea, and an educational presentation.

Gates vows to listen to Guam

Gates vows to listen to Guam

Friday, 05 February 2010 00:58
Variety News Staff

(Office of the Guam Delegate) -- Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo yesterday addressed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff, during a House Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, D.C. on the fiscal year 2011 defense budget.

Bordallo shared concerns raised by members of the community at recent town hall meetings regarding the draft environmental impact statement.

Gates stated that his department will work with Guam stakeholders to “have transparency and for [the Department of Defense] to take into account the views of the people of Guam.”

Bordallo expressed her continued opposition to the use of eminent domain by the Department of Defense for land acquisition and suggested that the DoD should look into building within their existing footprint on Guam.

Bordallo also expressed concerns regarding the aircraft carrier berthing and the potential damage to coral reefs during the dredging process.

Mullen further stated that these “are major moves that we want to get right.”

“I along with Chairman Skelton and others have repeatedly stated that we need to get this military build-up done right,” Bordallo said.

“The draft environmental impact statement released by the Department of Defense, in its current form, insufficiently addresses concerns raised by our local government, our community, and stakeholders on Guam,” Bordallo said.

“I took this opportunity today to share some of these concerns with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.

Both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen agreed that this military buildup must be done right, and most importantly, that the concerns of our community must be taken into account before we get to a final environmental impact statement

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Bordallo Raises Buildup Concerns With Gates And Mullen

Bordallo Raises Buildup Concerns With Gates And Mullen

Guam - Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo addressed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen,

Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff, during a House Armed Services Committee hearing today in Washington, D.C. on the Fiscal Year 2011 defense budget.

During the hearing, Congresswoman Bordallo shared concerns raised by members of the community at recent town hall meetings regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Specifically, Congresswoman Bordallo expressed her continued opposition to the use of eminent domain by the Department of Defense (DoD) for land acquisition and suggested that the DoD should look into building within their existing footprint on Guam.

Congresswoman Bordallo also expressed concerns regarding the aircraft carrier berthing and the potential damage to coral reefs during the dredging process. Secretary Gates stated that the Department of Defense would work with Guam stakeholders to “have transparency and for us [Department of Defense] to take into account the views of the people of Guam.”

Admiral Mullen further stated that these, “are major moves that we want to get right.”

“I along with Chairman Skelton and others have repeatedly stated that we need to get this military build-up done right,” Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo said today. “The Draft Environmental Impact Statement released by the Department of Defense, in its current form, insufficiently addresses concerns raised by our local government, our community, and stakeholders on Guam. I took this opportunity today to share some of these concerns with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen agreed that this military build-up must be done right, and most importantly, that the concerns of our community must be taken into account before we get to a Final Environmental Impact Statement.”

Written by :
Kevin Kerrigan

Bordallo addresses HASC on defense spending

Bordallo addresses HASC on defense spending

Posted: Feb 03, 2010 4:10 PM PST
by Heather Hauswirth

Guam - Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo today addressed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during today's hearing on the Fiscal Year 2011 defense budget. During the House Armed Services hearing, Congresswoman Bordallo shared concerns raised by members of the community at recent town hall meetings regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Specifically, Congresswoman Bordallo expressed her continued opposition to the use of eminent domain Department of Defense for land acquisition and suggested the feds should look into building within their existing footprint on Guam. Congresswoman Bordallo also expressed concerns regarding the aircraft carrier berthing and the potential damage to coral reefs during the dredging process.

Secretary Gates stated that the DoD would work with Guam stakeholders to "have transparency and for us [Department of Defense] to take into account the views of the people of Guam." Admiral Mullen further stated that these, "are major moves that we want to get right."