The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration didn’t adequately inform the public about a proposal to widen protections for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal or give them enough time to comment, according to former Hawaii governor and U.S. Senate candidate Linda Lingle.

NOAA is proposing to designate areas around the main Hawaiian Islands as critical habitat for the seals. The designation means that any activity that entails federal funding, a federal permit or a federal action, must be reviewed by NOAA to ensure that it won’t adversely impact the monk seal population. Fishermen have expressed concerns about how the regulations would affect them.

In a letter to NOAA officials last week criticizing the proposal, Lingle wrote the following:

NOAA published the proposed rule last June in a Federal publication that few citizens read: The Federal Register. They gave the public only 60 days to respond to a proposed rule that could last for over 50 years.

Lingle’s letter gives the impression that officials only informed the public through the Federal Register and that public comment was limited to 60 days.

Lenny Klompus, Lingle’s communications director, explained the Senate candidate’s comments this way.

“What the governor was saying is that the people should have an opportunity to comment and trying to point out that there should be more time for people to comment,” said Klompus.

Civil Beat spoke with NOAA officials and conducted its own research into how the public was notified.

Comment Period

The public was given 90 days to comment on the proposed rule, not 60 days, according to Lance Smith, a supervisory biologist at NOAA Fisheries in Hawaii.

This is corroborated by the notice published in the Federal Register on June 2, which says that the public has until August 31, to submit comments.

Giving the Public Notice

Whenever NOAA proposes new rules, it follows a protocol.

Including the notice in the federal publication is a minimum requirement when notifying the public of a proposed rule, according to NOAA’s Smith.

The Federal Register is the government’s daily publication of rules, proposed rules and notices of federal agencies, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents. Updated daily, it’s available online, and as Klompus noted, includes thousands of pages.

But that was not the only place where the public could find the information. NOAA officials also notified dozens of media outlets and public officials.

An internet search by Civil Beat found that during the first week of June, there were stories published about the proposed rule change and public comment period in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, The Garden Island, The Maui News, West Hawaii Today, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald, and on the website Hawaii News Now. Notice was also published on NOAA’s website and the websites of a number of environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and KAHEA. The Molokai Dispatch also published a story in mid-June.

Linda Smith, Lingle’s former senior policy adviser and a volunteer for her Senate campaign, said that the letter “specifically said [the notification] was published in the Federal Register, it didn’t say it was only published in the Federal Register.”

She agreed that Lingle’s comment that the public only had 60 days to comment wasn’t accurate. But she said it was “unfair” and “frankly not accurate” for Civil Beat to say that Lingle implied that NOAA officials only informed the public through the Federal Register.

But in her letter, Lingle gives the impression that notice was confined to the Federal Register, which is not true.

Lance Smith said that NOAA also contacted staff for Sens. Daniel K. Inouye and Daniel Akaka, Reps. Colleen Hanabusa and Mazie Hirono, as well as the Senate Commerce Committee, House Natural Resources Committee, Department of Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management. Smith said that in some cases they were notified by phone and in others by email.

In addition, NOAA conducted six public meetings around the state during the 90-day public comment period. Officials are only required to hold one meeting if there is a public request to do so.

Lance Smith said it didn’t seem fair to hold a meeting only on Oahu given the cost of travel for neighbor island residents.

Bottom Line

Civil Beat finds that Lingle’s comments are false.

NOAA officials followed federal rules, opening the public comment period for the maximum amount of time — 90 days, as opposed to the 60 days that Lingle cited.

Federal officials also went beyond what was required of them in notifying the public of the proposed critical habitat designation. Rather than only publishing the notice in the Federal Register, which she said “few citizens read,” NOAA contacted local media outlets, elected officials and government agencies, and held community meetings throughout the islands.