On the morning of Thursday, February 4th, the State Land Use Commission hearing was a packed house–wall to wall green shirts as over 60 people literally “stood up” for protecting some of O’ahu’s last wild shoreline.

After 23 years of inaction by developers, Defend Oahu Coalition filed a motion with the State Land Use Commission asking why 236 acres of the property should continue to be classified as an urban district. Today, developers want to use this decades-old agreement, forcing their massive new development on the rural Koolauloa/North Shore community–one that is wrong for this rural area and wrong for our time.

In spite of a day packed with passionate testimony, the overwhelming failure by numerous developers to meet their promises, the LUC again failed to reach a decision. Sigh.  See portions of the day’s events by clicking here

From our friends at Defend Oahu Coalition:

Defend Oahu Coalition would like to express our sincere appreciation for all who came to the Land Use Commission hearing yesterday in the strongest showing of support we have seen yet for Keeping the Country COUNTRY. As you may have already heard, despite a room full of green shirts, passionate testimony throughout the day, the overwhelming evidence of failure by numerous developers at Turtle Bay Resort to keep their promises, and a clear mandate to rule under State Land Use Law, the LUC failed to reach a decision. After nearly two years and six separate hearings, the commissioners once again decided to call it quits and kick the can down the road.

In 1986, the resort company asked that this agricultural land be reclassified as “urban/resort” in exchange for jobs, affordable housing, and parks to benefit the community. The project never materialized, and neither did these benefits. The developers never acted, and their agreement with the State seemingly expired. Over twenty years passed, with different owners, different management and different developers promising jobs, parks, and affordable housing. All while undeveloped open spaces continued to dwindle, and traffic problems escalated.

Today, despite overwhelming public protest, Kuilima Resort Company Kuilima Resort Company (KRC) and its parent company Los Angeles- based Oaktree Capital Management is pressing forward to expand their Turtle Bay Resort with five new hotels and 1,000 luxury condos on Oahuʻs rural North Shore.

Returning the land to its original “agriculture” classification would allow the Turtle Bay Resort to continue operations, but would send a strong message to speculators and overseas developers that they must keep promises that they make to the people of Hawaii. The Turtle Bay Resort has recently been marketed as a rural get-away and is today doing better business than most Waikiki hotels. The LUC should return these acres and protect them as rural agricultural lands. You can find information about upcoming meetings and hearings at Defend Oahu’s website.

Twenty-three years is more than enough time! You can support the Defend Oahu Coalition motion with just one click!

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)

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.

“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.

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.

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.

Instead of having a limit of 2,120 sets of fishing gear deployments annually, Wespac thinks it’s a better idea to just catch swordfish until a sea turtle gets tangled in the net… WHAT?

Green sea turtles, loggerhead turtles, and leatherback turles are all endangered species that live in Hawaii. This new rule puts all three of these species at an even higher risk, along with dolphins, sharks, seabird, and whales.

There is a lot to lose when less stringent rules are introduced in commercial fishing:

Hawaiian longliners have historically hooked two to 10 sharks for every swordfish. At least 60,000 sharks–and more often around 100,000–are caught each year by swordfish crews, who often cut off the fins from live animals and then allow them to slide off the deck and drown…[furthermore] If this proposal goes forward, Fisheries is estimating a humpback will be killed every year.

Mahalo to everyone who took action on this issue in our last e-newsletter.

Click here to read the entire article from the Honolulu Weekly : Swordfight!

Entitled Aquaculture in Hawaii: Economic Advantage or Source of Sustainability, the Hawaii Venture Capitalist Association’s recent meeting addressed the benefits of many types of aquaculture in Hawaii. I think the presentation did a good job of explaining how aquaculture could be in Hawaii, in its most ideal form.

One of the first things mentioned was that aquaculture could help restore wild fish populations that are headed towards extinction. They failed to address, however, how that would happen. It is accepted in the scientific community that fish raised in fish farms are much less fit to live in the wild. Another weak point in the presentation was explaining how the current and future open ocean aquaculture ventures would increase self-sufficiency in Hawaii by reducing imports. Up to 90% of the future ventures’ fish would be exported, while the 10% allotted for Hawaii would go to restaurants like Alan Wong’s and Mariposa, restaurants that most people here can’t afford to go to on a regular basis.

There were also two slides that were completely skipped, clearly regarding genetics. I understand that this may have been due to time constraints, but the public deserves to know not only about possible economic gains from aquaculture, but also the genetic and environmental consequences of it.

A good way to sum up the outlook of the meeting is with the quote

“If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing badly”

this quote was used during the presentation, but who is to say what is worth doing and what isn’t? Is anything worth doing badly anymore? A  commenter on one of m previous posts claimed that “fish poop” produced from aquaculture can curb the effects of climate change by absorbing the CO2 from the atmosphere, and adding it to the ocean. However, as my previous “ocean acidification” post details, an increase nutrient-rich fish effluent leads to the acidification of the ocean, thereby further risking the health of many ecosystems.

Once again, I urge everyone to learn more about what is going on in terms of aquaculture in Hawaii.

Here are some links to more info on open ocean aquaculture. It is our responsibility to find out as much as we can while we can.

Food and Water Watch: Fish Farms

Kona Blue Fish Farm

Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc