Blog

The Supreme Court of Hawai`i announced yesterday it would hear oral arguments on whether an outdated 25-year old Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provided enough information to approve a proposed expansion of the Turtle Bay Resort. Kuilima Resort Company, owner of the property and currently headed by local developer Stanford Carr, is seeking approval for five new hotels and 1000 luxury condos at the Turtle Bay Resort on O`ahu’s rural North Shore.

The Supreme Court will review a split 2-1 decision made by the State Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which denied the Keep the North Shore Country and Sierra Club, Hawai`i Chapter’s request for an updated review of the proposed development’s environmental and community impacts. The ICA majority held that no supplemental EIS would ever be required unless the “project itself” changed. This ruling could be taken to absurd conclusions. For example, Turtle Bay’s 1985 EIS could remain valid for hundreds of years, even if there are major hurricanes, drastic shoreline erosion, or significant changes to the community in the area.

“Much has changed in the last two decades, most notably the rapid growth in traffic congestion along the narrow, two-lane Kamehameha Highway, the only regional roadway on the North Shore,” said Gil Riviere, President of Keep the North Shore Country. “The expansion plan is extremely unpopular due to concerns of over-development of the rural area, traffic gridlock, new environmental concerns such as endangered monk seals pupping on the resort property, and the likelihood of disturbing ancient Hawaiian burials.”

Six community organizations represented by Earthjustice – Conservation Council of Hawai’i, Surfrider Foundation, Hawai’i's Thousand Friends, Life of the Land, Maui Tomorrow Foundation, and KAHEA: The Hawai’i Environmental Alliance – filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of Keep the North Shore Country and the Sierra Club’s position. Their involvement was necessitated by the broad negative ramifications of the ICA’s ruling, which could impact development projects throughout the State.

“The purpose of an EIS is to ensure decision makers have the necessary information about the human and environmental impacts of a proposed project,” said Robert D. Harris, Director of the Sierra Club, Hawai`i Chapter. “This lets the community be involved in the process and ensures smart decisions are made,” he continued. “Plainly, we cannot rely upon obsolete information to approve a project that is clearly no longer appropriate for the community.”

Oral arguments are currently scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 11:00 a.m.

(Mahalo to Dick Mayer)

From Snorkel Bob (Robert Wintner), on Tuesday’s Ocean Policy Task Force:

Consensus was overwhelming; conservation efforts in Hawaii have been stifled in the name of commerce for too long. The Ocean Policy Task Force may render a sea change in priorities & approach. We shall see. At any rate, NOAA got the message with a panel representing depth in science & political will. The HPR commentator noted aquarium extraction as a common complaint throughout the session. By raising many voices, we got the point across.

Irene Bowie for Maui Tomorrow challenged the wisdom of re-opening the Hawaii swordfish longline fishery, that would allow triple allowable “take” of loggerhead & leatherback turtles, which includes any form of interaction, with the expectation that up to 3 adult females and up to about 7 other loggerheads would be killed annually. The longline issue was spearheaded at the San Francisco task force venue, though it’s a Hawaii “fishery,” so Irene’s testimony stood out.

You can still submit your testimony to the Task Force online here.

From Miwa:

“We are the Kānaka. We are the Hawaiians. We are the ones who, if you screw it up, have nowhere else to go. Whose mana, whose ancestors, whose everything, will be lost.” - Testimony from one uncle from Oʻahu to the Ocean Policy Task Force members.

So, I only made it to the last hour or so of the Ocean Policy Task Force Honolulu “listening” session yesterday, but here are a few of my observations from the time I was there (The amazing Marti and our board member Kealoha Pisciotta were there throughout the afternoon):

Despite the tsunami warning in the AM, it was still a pretty packed room with people from around the islands. (Brothers and sisters in Samoa, in our thoughts.) Thanks to all who heard the kāhea and came out!

In June, the President made a commitment to dramatically improve the health of the ocean. As per usual, however, the push towards a unified U.S. ocean policy may get hijacked by corporate interests seeking to exploit our oceans and may end up undermining local management efforts. Original plans by the Feds were to hold this session in San Francisco only, meaning a 3,000+ miles trek and thousands of dollars in travel costs for concerned Hawai’i (and other peoples of the Pacific) residents. We fought hard to have this “listening session” in Honolulu.

So first, let me say that it was great to actually see administration officials IN Hawai’i, face-to-face with people of the Pacific. In principle? Listening Session = Awesome. In practice? It was sort of more like a “we’ll-listen-to-the-guys-we-want-to-hear-from, and-then-the- rest-of-you-can-talk, at-least-until-we-have-to-leave-for-dinner” session.

There was  a hand-picked panel of “stakeholders” up first, ostensibly representing different “stakeholder groups.” Administration officials were about 6 feet above the audience, lined up at a table on a stage, listening. After the panel, the floor was opened up to “everyone else.” At six o’clock, administration officials called it quits. Approximately 35 people who had waited hours to testify, were sent away.

I argued against this kind of “listening” model a lot when I worked in government. The problem I have with this kind of “stakeholder representation” process–the problem I’ve always had with this kind of process–is that it allows a small group of government officials to arbitrarily elevate the voices of a favored few, while demoting the voices of others.

Officials and government staff and consultants favor this kind of model because it gives them a sense that they are being “fair”–through the stakeholder panel, different groups are “equally” represented (e.g., this guy represents business, this guy represents Hawaiians, this guy represents surfers, this guy represents conservation interests)–in an orderly fashion that doesn’t take up a ton of their time and minimizes their being yelled at.

These are all understandably human desires. Orderly = good. Being yelled at = bad.

The problem, is that this is a false sense of order. In reality (where all of us actually live), the world is messy, it is complex, it is imbued with people’s passions, guided by what they care about, filled with uncertain choices, and sometimes charged by their righteous outrage.

Being listened to by government on the fate and future of resources in the public trust should not be a privilege, but a sacred right.

Kealoha noted how much of the public testimony (outside the panel) really focused on the unique needs of Pacific Island nations, sovereignty, the need to acknowlege Hawaiian right-holders, and the imperative to respectfully seek and request indigenous knowledge and ways-of-knowing.

For Hawaiʻi, the stakes are incredibly high. In Hawai’i, we are a place of ocean. The future of Hawaiian waters is the future of Hawai’i. And, (I say this with all due respect) if you must be late to dinner, Dr. Lubchenko, because you are listening to what citizens in Hawai’i have travelled miles to say about their own future, I think maybe that should be okay.

But as a beginning, I left this “listening session” feeling… hopeful. This process will continue over the next year or so, and with more opportunities for Hawaiʻi communities to meaningfully speak to the future of our public trust Hawaiian waters. Please be on the lookout for the next kāhea to participate!

You can still submit written testimony to the Task Force online here.

From Alana:

As a result of many letters being sent to state representatives, Rep. Mazie Hirono has decided to co-sponsor the “Offshore Aquaculture is not Fishing Act of 2009″. The bill asserts that under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and regional fishery management councils do not have the authority to permit or regulate the commercial ocean fish farming industry, because it is not fishing. 

The federal law that gives the Gulf Council and NOAA authority to regulate fish and fishing region-by-region was not intended to govern risky industrial enterprises like ocean fish farms.

This is a step in the right direction for the regulation of offshore aquaculture, which might soon happen in the Gulf of Mexico, and expand in places like Hawaii.

From Alana:

From “Hawai’i has a lot to gain from open ocean aquaculture” in today’s Honolulu Advertiser:

Just as we need to be off imported oil, we need to be off imported seafood. This opportunity can be an economic engine for Hawai’i, and hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.Let’s not stand in our own way. There’s  a lot to gain for everyone.

Absolutely.

The amount of seafood that we import is really astounding. It is upsetting, though, that in the wake of a very large aquaculture operation, which would export up to 90% of its ahi products, statements like the above, are used to defend it.

The article, by Jay Fidell of ThinkTech Hawaii, goes on to say that:

There are anti-aquaculture groups who don’t want “greedy” corportations to make a profit and export aquaculture products to outside markets. Those groups don’t acknowledge andvancements in the technology, and regularly diseminate disinformation about the industry. They’ve been pulling out all the stops, apparently bent on wiping out open ocean aquaculture in Hawai’i. Theyre’re completely wrong. Without open ocean aquaculture, Hawai’i would have to depend on foreign unregulated producers and overfished wild stocks. Those options are not nearly as secure or sustainable as the development of homegrown open ocean aquaculture.

I do not think of myself as entirely “anti-aquaculture”, I just think it should be done right. My cause is not to “diseminate disinformation”, it is to let people know that there are serious implications that multiple aquaculture ventures could have on Hawaii’s marine ecosystems. It is also to open peoples eyes to aquaculture in other parts of the world, and to how it has affected those places. This article makes it seem like there is some hidden agenda beneath fighting these giant open ocean aquaculture projects. But really, I have nothing to gain from this. I have neither read nor heard anything pro-open ocean aquaculture, aside from the people who would benefit direcly from it.

From Alana:

For the past few weeks there have been numerous articles, editorials, and letters to editors in several local newspapers regarding open ocean aquaculture. A recent editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser states that 

the large size and experimental nature of the [Hawaii Oceanic Tech] project demands that state regulators, and the public, keep a critical eye on the project as it moves forward.

The article goes on to say that the objective of this project is an organic, ecologically sustainable fish. 

PROBLEM #1: Organic. The problem with this is that there are no organic standards for fish farming. It would also be especially hard to develop one for open ocean aquaculture, because the cages are not closed systems. Anything that is in the water will wind up in the bodies of the fish.

Hawaii Oceanic Tech also hopes to use “organic feed” for their fish. The main ingredient in HOTIs feed will be “sardines from sustainable fish stocks”. But, this goes back to what I said above: there are no organic standards for fish, so any claims of their feed being so are false.

PROBLEM #2: Ecologically Sustainable. This is a tricky one, just because it is so undefined. What is ecologically sustainable? Everything humanity does will impact the environment in some way. Perhaps ecologically sustainable means there is a balance of pros and cons for the environment. But what are the pros in this situation? Proponents of aquaculture say that farming fish gives wild populations a chance to repopulate, but this is easily proven wrong by the environmental havoc  that fish farming has caused in British Columbia and other places where fish farms are popular. Many Canadians are embarrassed that their government has let the caged farming industry expand because of its serious impacts. 

More information about ocean fish farming’s impact on wild stocks can be found here: Science Daily: Ocean Fish Farming Harms Wild Fish, Study Says (Neil Frazer-UH)

Keep your eyes open for more aquaculture in the news in the coming weeks.