Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0154.000 2008-2010LINDA LINGLE GOVERNON OF FIAWAII LAURA 11. TIIIELEN CIIAIRPIFSON 110ARIJ 0( IAND ANO NA NRAL RI'CU V RCRC COMMRSION ON WATFA RF]UVRCI!MANA[iFM FNF RUSSELL Y. TSUJI FIILSI'DFJ9ITY KENCKAWAHARA OI IPIIFY OIIUiI V 0. - W AThJ( REF:000L:DH STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 Councilmember J. Yoshimoto Councilmember Pete Hoffinan County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Council Members, K1UAi1C BISOIMCIS UOAIING ANO IK'CAN RPCRIIAT ION UUIUNII O4 CONVF.VANCLS COMM69pN UN WATLA RISOVRCIi MANAO FM PM CONSI'RV ATR1N ANO COAtiTAL LM'115 CONR[iRVAT10N ANU RL40URCl'S IN40RCEMFN'T 1'NCINLIAWG FORI,TRYANII W IIJ)1 UI! HRTORC PREIERVAIR)N KAII(%IIAWE RIAND RISI!RVI! COMM4SSpN IAND sAn PnRCs CDUA HA-3496 Acceptance Date: January 30, 20~ 180-Day Exp. Date: July~9, 20~ 'T FBI r 5dD09 I F-+ S 17 ° T+,^~ ~ ~: T {T _ y: _,~ : ~ .•: :.~ N SUBJECT: Proposed Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) and Request for Lease for Marine Waters for the Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. Aquaculture Project, Offshore Waters of Malae Point, North Kohala, Island of Hawaii. Attached, please find CDUA HA-3496 our environmental determination, and our Departments notice to the applicant. We would appreciate your review and comment on this application by March 6, 2009. If no response is received, we will assume there are no comment Shou you have questions, please call Dawn Hegger of our Office of Conservation and Coastal ands st ff at 587-0380. Sin ly, Samuel J. Lemmo, Administrator Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Attachments Comm. No.~_! .-- Ref. To: ~~ Ref. Date KKR I_ '1 7~ ~P, 4_:.-- February 10, 2009 Laura H. Thielen, Chairperson Board of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Post Office Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 REF:000L:DH CDUA: HA-3495 Dear Ms. Thielen, Please find attached with this transmittal letter ten copies of our DEIS, CDUA with the Chairperson's signature page, the DLNR acceptance letter and Enclosure 3 as requested. The January 30, 2009 acceptance letter from the Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), notes that as part of the BLNR evaluation of the Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. application for a lease for marine activities in state marine waters, `time (BLNR) request information related to the two criteria listed in Section 190D-11(e). Specifically: (1) The applicant has the capacity to carry out the entire project; and (2) The proposed project is clearly in the public interest upon consideration of the overall economic, social, and environmental impacts.° Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. responds as follows: (1) The applicant has the capacity to carry out the entire project Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. (HOT) is a "C" corporation formed under Delaware law and operating exclusively in the State of Hawaii. It has been cert~ed by the Hawaii State Department of Taxation as a "qualified high technology business° in the Ocean Science category and eligible for Act 221/215 investment based on the fact that at least 50% of the company's business activity involves research and development and that 75% of the company's projected revenues will be derived from the results of that research and development. The company's legal structure as a "C" corporation allows it to i stock to qualified individual and institutional investors. The company has been sally raising money for this project since inception in 2006. funding raised to date is sufficient to conduct research and development as well as ~ on all of the activities necessary to pursue permits, complete an Environmental pct Statement, assist UH Hilo with student training and preparation of tuna spawning ties at their existing facilities at the Pacific Aquaculture and Coastal Resources ter (PACRC) and pertorm the associated design, engineering and construction Wing necessary to build its open ocean aquaculture platform known as the ansphere. All investment rounds have been registered with the U.S. Securities and range Commission in accordance with SEC rules and regulations. In as of A in a nmary, Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. is properly legally structured to raise through the sale of stock to qualified individuals and institutional investors. ors in the company include three professional venture capital firms, Kolohala re Fund, mTerra Venture Fund and Fulcrum Fund and 11 individual qualified ors and/or family trusts. All of these professional institutional venture funds have it objectives investment in green technology, clean technology or socially nsible companies. ipanies such as Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. which seek to develop new inologies to meet the needs of large markets are typically venture backed. Venture tal companies such as those investing in HOT have high standards and iirements that must be met before they invest. Venture capital companies are caged by professional investment managers, experienced entrepreneurs and boards irectors comprised of industry experts and people from among their limited partners. >nture fund is typically a limited partnership. The limited partners pool their money the fund and that money is then invested over a period of time of usually 2-3 years portfolio of companies that meet the stated objectives of the fund. Once a certain cunt of money is raised from the limited partners, the fund is closed to additional stors. The fund managers then begin seeking companies to invest in using strict stment criteria. The criteria include but are not limited to: (1) an experienced iagement team, (2) evidence of breakthrough intellectual property under ;lopment, patented inventions and/or inventions undergoing the patent process, (3) :II defined market addressed by the company's intellectual property, (4) the ability to eve speck progress milestones and or history of achievement, (5) swell-defined Hess model {how the company will make money once its product/service is fully doped), and (6) a realistic "exit strategy" such as being acquired by a larger ipany, or a public stock offering that will give the investors a reasonable return on capital funds rarely if ever invest all of the money they expect to invest in a y all at once, or up front. They typically participate on the company's board of ,, closely monitor progress, oversee and in some cases supplement ment teams, and make sure the company stays focused on achieving stated 2 milestones. Every year after careful review of progress, the investors will decide whether and how much to continue to invest. As milestones are met and progress is made, the value of the company increases which determines the price per share. Investors with large holdings in a company will typically put in more money proportionate to their ownership share so that they continue to own the same share of the company going forward that they initially started out with. This is why companies go through several rounds of investments known as "series" or °tranches". For example: If a company raises $1 M in a Series A round with a "pre-money" valuation of $2M, the post money valuation will be $3M and the investor who puts in $1 M will own 33% of the company. When the company achieves certain milestones that add value, like obtaining a permit, or receiving a patent, the company may seek to raise additional funding in order to capitalize on those accomplishments. The company will offer a Series B round and the pre-money valuation will increase commensurate with the accomplishmehts. At this point, for example, the pre-money valuation might be $10M, so the investor in order to maintain its ownership share would then invest an additional $5M allowing them to maintain their 33% ownership share of the company. As the company makes further progress, achieves milestones and continues to grow it may require additional investment, the amount of which would be determined by the increased valuation. Of course, company founders and early investors would all like to see a company achieve growth in revenues and profitability such that additional investment may not be required. In most cases, however, companies will go through several rounds of private financing before revenue can be made and profitability can be achieved. In the case of HOT, the key milestones affecting valuation and the ability to raise funding sufFcient to start generating revenues, are continuing to be met and funding is continuing to be raised. The next significant value creation event for the company will be obtaining its permits and ocean lease. Achieving these milestones will allow the company to begin tuna farming operations and start growing tuna for sale to markets in Japan and the U.S. mainland. By this point, investors will be ready to put in the funding necessary to move forward. They will certainly not abandon the company and walk away from their earlier investment, as it is their goal to achieve a return on their investment. If HOT cannot get a permit and ocean lease in Hawaii, the company would move its operations to a place where permits could be obtained. To date, HOT has demonstrated beyond any doubt that it meets all of the criteria demanded by institutional investors that make it an attractive investment. Although the company and its investors are keenly aware of the risks they are taking, it is the goal of the management team and the investors to work very hard to mitigate those risks, set achievable milestones and make steady progress that increases the company's valuation thereby justifying additional investment. 3 HOT's founders and management team have demonstrated to their investors that it has the "legal competence and fitness," or "capacity," to achieve its stated business plan. Since no investor gives a company all the money it needs up front, HOT management has proven it can execute its plan and has raised larger and larger amountsiof funding in three investment rounds. Management has demonstrated the ability to execute its business plan, technical capability and prudent fiscal management. As df 2009, the company is continuing to do all the work necessary to achieve critical value creating milestones. The fact that three professionally managed venture funds have continued to invest in the company further demonstrates the company's worthiness for continued investment if milestones continue to be met. It should be clear from this evidence that the company and its management team have demonstrated the "capacity to carry out the entire project" especially if milestones such as obtaining permits necessary to operate can be achieved. Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. has demonstrated that it has the "capacity to carry out the entire project." Withholding permits based on an interpretation of 190D-11(e) that a company must have all of the funds in the bank is impractical and discriminatory. Such an interpretation goes against the very spirit of innovation that this country is founded upon. It would discriminate against entrepreneurship; it would be inconsistent with Governor Lingle's stated policy to promote an "innovation economy" for Hawaii; and it would be inconsistent with how venture capital finance works. Such an interpretation would require that only a large company with large amounts of discretionary cash be allowed to undertake an innovative project such as the one HOT proposes. An interpretation of this nature would have prevented companies such as Apple Computer, Intel, Google, eBay, Amazon, Facebook, Motorola and thousands of other venture backed start-ups from ever getting off the ground and forever changing the way we live. From an analysis of public documents for the other open ocean aquaculture companies in Hawaii, it appears that Cates International and Kona Blue did not necessarily have all the funding they needed to execute their open ocean aquaculture projects when they were granted an ocean lease and CDU permit based on an Environmental Assessment. HOT has exceeded their requirement by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. The' definition of "capacity" according to Webster is `9egal competency or fitness" and "the facility or power to produce, perform or deploy." Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. has met a very high standard set by venture capital investors that meets that definition and demonstrates to its investors that with the cooperation of the state of Hawaii it has the capacity to carry out this project. 4 (2) The proposed project is clearly in the public interest upon consideration of the overall economic, social, and environmental impacts. In the Public Interest The concept of "public interest" is a term of policy for which there is little consensus as to definition. We will attempt to address this question both in terms of how our business contributes to the general welfare of the people of Hawaii, and by how our business addresses a global problem defined as the world's ocean's inability to sustainably meet global demand for seafood as a source. of protein. We assume that it is commonly understood that modern day fishing techniques have changed little since pre-historic days. For the most part, humans behave as hunter gatherers, taking seafood from the oceans with little regard to quotas and virtually no regard to impact. Hunting for wild fish is also deemed a "sport" for some who typically do not require the food they catch to feed their families. Ancient Hawaiians recognized the sacred nature of fish as a food source, and endeavored to adopt fish farming and fishery management practices, in their efforts to sustain this precious resource. Today the United States imports 85% of all seafood it consumes. More than 40% of those imports are from Asian aquaculture producers, many of.whom do not use environmentally sound methods or even those that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would deem safe procedures. Overall, the US seafood industry is in decline and our dependence on foreign sources of seafood threatens our national security. Specifically, the tuna industry in Hawaii and worldwide is in decline. Stocks of blue fin, big eye and yellowfin are reportedly under such stress that in some regions they may not recover. In today's world rising fuel prices and dwindling supplies of wild fish stocks portend a certain collapse of the fishing industries in many countries, and denial of the world's population access to this important source of healthy food protein. In Hawaii, the tuna fishery is also under great stress. The tuna fishery in Hawaii is 90% fished out and the few tuna fisherman still in business have to travel as much as 1,500 miles and stay at sea 2-3 weeks in order to catch sufficient tuna to re-coup the fuel and operating expenses they incur. We estimate that long liners have to travel 50 miles for every pound of tuna they catch. Jobs have been lost and livelihoods destroyed. Yet as an island state we are surrounded by billions of square miles of ocean. Hawaii's Exclusive Economic Zone is 200,000 square miles, second only to Alaska's in size. While tourists flock here by the thousands to fish for marlin, swordfish and tuna, the fishing industry is under severe stress. The cost of fresh wild caught tuna can reach more than $20 per pound at many times during the year putting it out of reach for most citizens. Like the rest of the United States much of our tuna is imported from the Philippines and other developing countries. It has to be treated with "tasteless" carbon monoxide gas, in order to preserve the look of freshness, frozen and shipped thousands of miles. It is clearly in the public interest to sustainably produce more ocean based seafood before wild fisheries collapse. It is further in the public interest, that methods be 5 developed to farm fish in the open ocean in an environmentally respectful and economically viable manner. The mission of Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. is to use the latest technology and the most scientific and sound environmental principals to achieve these goals. Impact Presently, due to fishing and shipping methods, the carbon footprint of tunas as a food source actually exceeds that of cattle, which in addition to the transportation contribution to t ~ eir carbon footprint also contribute millions of tons of ozone depleting methane gas into the atmosphere. In 1985, acclaimed ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau declared that °mankind must learn to farm the sea as we farm the land." Little progress has been made since then. Most of what progress has been made has occurred right here in Hawaii. Hawaii has been declared the "Silicon Valley" of aquaculture by the last Secretary of Commerce. s to two companies, Cates International (now Hukilau Foods) and Kona Blue Farms, Hawaii has the only two closed loop open ocean fish farms in the United Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. intends to be the third. Another US company, erfarms, has had to move from Puerto Rico to Central America due to permitting ties. In the aquaculture research sector, Hawaii is also home to the Oceanic e, one of the world's foremost aquaculture research organizations, contributing to y's ability to spawn several varieties of fish in captivity as well as creating a e resistant shrimp brood stock sold throughout Asia. Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. has demonstrated in its Environmental Impact Statement and Conservation District Use Application the company has demonstrated an approach to open ocean fish farming that, if allowed to proceed, has the potential to revolutionize the aquaculture industry with no significant environmental impact. The overriding design objective of the company is to implement an environmentally respectful and economically viable way to farm seafood in the deep ocean,I away from shorelines where there are constant currents, massive amounts of clean water and stable temperatures. These factors will contribute to fish health and eliminate the need to use antibiotics and prevent disease. They will also allow maximum dilution of effluent. Our approach is also designed to minimize the carbon footprint associated with seafood production and eliminate pressure on wild stocks helping them replenish. Ou'r closed loop strategy takes advantage of the demonstrated ability to spawn tuna in captivity. Using this system, approximately seven tuna will be caught per year in waters off the Island of Hawaii and used as brood stock to produce fingerlings from eggs under coritract to the Pacific Aquaculture and Coastal Resources Center in Hilo. This closed- loop aquaculture system avoids the negative impacts of increased fishing pressure from current tuna farming "catch and fatten" methods that take young tuna out of the ocean before they have had a chance to reproduce, further stressing the fishery. In addition, a recent study published in the journal Science, January 19, 2009, by researchers led by Rod W. Wilson of the University of Exeter in England shows that marine fish excrete 6 between 3% and 15% of total carbonate found in the ocean. This has the documented effect of countering the acid created by carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean. In layman's terms, fish poop is good for the ocean. This may be another potentially beneficial environmental impact of open ocean aquaculture that merits future research. The company's Oceansphere is a large aquaculture platform that is NOT tethered to the ocean floor. Like modern day ocean survey vessels and oil drilling platforms, it is designed to operate autonomously and stay on station in geo-static position utilizing the latest telecommunication technology and tools, many of which have been tested, proven and are in use by the U.S. oil industry and military services. At the heart of the company's technology is a hybrid Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) power source. Our OTEC system uses the difference in temperatures between the surface and 600 feet below the surface to expand and contract a gas inside an engine that in turn drives an electricity generator. That electricity is then stored in batteries and used to operate the various components of the Oceansphere that keep it on station, allow observation of the Oceanspheres' contents, the quality of the water, the speed of the currents and the detection of intruders, whether man or animal. There are 21 separate inventions incorporated in the company's patent application that defend these technological advancements. One of the best ocean engineering companies in the world has been contracted with to assist with the design and engineering of this OTEC power plant and related systems. Although OTEC is normally thought of as-away to provide large amounts of power, enough to electrify a city, our hybrid OTEC power plant is small scale and designed to produce just enough power to operate the Oceansphere. One venture capitalist who reviewed our technology suggested that it might be the "killer application" for OTEC, meaning it was one of the best OTEC applications he had ever seen. Hawaii Oceanic Technology's business plan and environmental impact statement shows how its operation will significantly reduce the carbon footprint associated with the production of seafood, in particular tuna. When fully operational the company expects to produce 6,000 tons of Ahi per year in one half square mile of ocean or one square kilometer. That is .00025% of Hawaii's 200,000 square mile Exclusive Economic Zone. As a comparison, average production data from cattle operations indicate that it would take about sixty times more land area, 21,000 acres, or 30 square miles, to produce an equal quantity of beef from cattle. By taking advantage of the ability to operate in the deep ocean environment, the company does not require a large physical footprint to be economically viable. The total fuel consumption of work, harvest boats and delivery vehicles required by the company to produce 6,000 tons of tuna is equal to five miles per pound of tuna or 1/10th the amount of fuel consumed by Hawaii's long line fishing fleet for the same amount of tuna. The company can also reduce fuel and other costs by the ability to "harvest on demand", and can supply consumers a fresh consistent quality product at a predictable price on a sustainable basis. 7 In t day's $70 billion aquaculture industry, what you feed farmed fish is a major issue Indeed, this is one of the largest expenses the company will incur. Presently the company intends to obtain its fish food from sustainable sources it has identified. The food will not be treated with any artificial substances or antibiotics. It will bey nutritionally appropriate for the species being raised and will meet the highest possible organic standards. The food will be thoroughly tested before it is accepted and deployed for feeding. Our goal is to produce seafood that meets or exceeds contemplated standards for organically farmed seafood products. Due to the cost of incoming shipping and a desire to have minimum impact on lower value fish that comprise fish food today, the company is devoting resources. to finding economically viable alternatives that do not affect the flavor and texture of the final end pro°duct. Furthermore, the company would like to work with local farmers and suppliers of fish food alternatives so as to reduce associated shipping costs and contribute to the local economy. One such alternative is the algae by-product derived from the use of algae to produce biofuels. Many companies, some of which are backed by large mainland oil companies like Shell Oil, intend to grow algae in Hawaii for biofuels. We-are working closely with some of these companies to make arrangements to take what remains after the oils are extracted from the algae and use this by product to supplement or even replace fish protein in fish food. In other cases we may contract with farmers to grow soy beans as a source of protein and nutrients in our fish food. We will also work with researchers at theUniversity of Hawaii that have figured out a way to make fish food from the waste by-product used to make ethanol. Sixty-five percent of all fishmeal based food product is used to feed farm animals. We are sensitive to the fact that as the $70 billion a year aquaculture industry grows, companies must find viable alternatives. Impact ;e Governor Ariyoshi began efforts to stimulate the growth of a high technology nomic sector in Hawaii in the mid eighties, thousands of companies have been ted by entrepreneurs just like the founders of Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. In last seven years, investors have put more than $1.2 billion dollars into qual~ed high r companies such as ours. These companies have created world changing Ilectual property, hired thousands of workers and contractors and put $1.4 billion k into the Hawaii economy. Innovation is key to Hawaii's economic survival into the re. Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. is intent on building an economically viable ition to one of the biggest problems facing mankind, the growing depletion of food by a world hungry for fish. We join iwo other open ocean aquaculture ipanies in Hawaii in attempting to achieve this goal and believe that thanks to vaii's forward looking ocean lease law, it is one of the only places in the U.S. that achieve this objective. i has depended almost solely on tourism and the military as its economic engine. the state is no longer competitive as a producer of land based agricultural 8 products, its reliance on tourism has resulted in several economic slumps over the last 20 years as factors outside of our control have impacted the number of tourists visiting our islands. Aquaculture is one of the few export industries that Hawaii can excel at. Our location in the middle of the Pacific and aquaculture expertise gives us a global competitive strategic advantage. The EIS explains in detail how this proposed project is consistent with state economic development policies, agricultural development policies and ocean resources management policies. Specifically, the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan (HORMP) sets the goal to "encourage cutting edge and appropriate ocean science and technology with safeguards for ocean resource protection," with a strategic action to "plan and develop sustainable commercial aquaculture in coastal areas and ocean waters to diversify and expand Hawaii's economy and provide locally produced sources of seafood (HORMP, 2006, p. 38). Unfortunately, due to the lack of land in Hawaii, some types of on shore aquaculture are not economically viable leaving us with the option of moving aquaculture into the open ocean. The inability of near shore tethered open ocean aquaculture systems to expand horizontally has hampered economic scalability and forced one of our two pioneering aquaculture firms to seek expansion outside of Hawaii, thereby denying the state of export revenues and subsequent jobs and tax revenues. Hawaii Oceanic Technology seeks to avoid the potential conflicts found in the near shore environment by using a technological design allowing the operations to be located far from shore in deep waters without anchors. Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. is devoted to operating in Hawaii. The company believes that the State's ocean lease law gives it tremendous competitive strategic advantage that can afford economic viability. The company's technology allows the construction of very large aquaculture platforms, our Oceanspheres. The Oceansphere takes advantage of the ability to operate in very deep water, far from shore. Their large size, 82,500 cubic meters, allows for low stocking densities and high capacity in a small geographic footprint. This makes for predictable economic scalability with no significant environmental impact. The company projects export revenues of approximately. $120 million per year which is six times more than the current value of all aquaculture output in the state. The company expects to create at least 22 direct jobs and using DBEDT's economic multiplier, 46 indirect jobs. The company also expects to sub-contract with fisherman, boat operators, seafood processing companies, testing laboratories and eventually local farmers and other providers of fish food which will create or sustain hundreds of other jobs on the Big Island. Another positive economic effect of our business for Hawaii is the generation of science and technology revenues that will help balance the state's dependence on tourism and the military while generating permanent jobs, GET revenues and income tax revenues for the state. Once the company's business model and technologies are proven, it may seek to expand its operation in Hawaii's Exclusive Economic Zone and license its technology 9 ghout the world. If allowed, the company will also be able to provide a sustainable :e of quality affordably-priced seafood to the people of Hawaii. It will also help ct the natural stocks of tuna of Hawaii and the world, which are on the verge of use, and help meet the seafood protein requirements of the world's rapidly growing lation. In summary, Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. founders and investors believe that with the cooperation of the State of Hawaii, the company has the capacity to carry out its business plan, and that this proposed project is clearly in the public interest upon consideration of the overall social, economic and environmental impacts. We look forward to building a successful environmentally-responsible aquaculture company in Hawaii and helping to strengthen and diversify our local economy for the benefit of Hawaii's people. Officer DLNR Acceptance Letter Chairpersons signature page 3 10 LWDAUNCLE covEw+oR OF xpwnn ~~ anC ~ "dam _ ~~ .^". Sar~olw~°~' REF:000L:DH Bill Spencer, CEO Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. 425 South Street, # 2902 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Deaz Mr. Spencer, JAN 3 0 2009 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE AND PRELIMINARY ENVIItONMENTAL DETERMINATION Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) File No. HA-3495 (Board Permit) and Request for a Lease for Marine Activities This acknowledges the receipt and acceptance for processing of Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) and request for a lease for marine waters for the proposed open ocean fish farm, in offshore waters of Malae Point, North Kohala, Island of Hawaii. The Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL) is writing to inform you the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) is bound by statute to accept or reject each application within 30 days of receipt. The OCCL has reviewed CDUA HA-3495, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and Management Plan and considers them complete. According to your information, Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. is proposing an open ocean aquaculture farm approximately three miles offshore (2.6 nautical miles) due west of Malae Point. The proposed azea will consist of 247-acres and will contain 12 sea cages, known as "oceanspheres" which will be evenly distributed; each platform is 54 meters in height and 54 meters in diameter. The platforms will be held at a depth of 180 feet (55 meters) below the water surface. The tops of the platform will be 65 feet (20 meters) below the sea surface. The water depth at the proposed site is 1,320 feet (402.34 meters). The project is proposing to produce 6,000 tons (5,443 metric tons) per year of yellow fin (Thunnus albacares) tuna or bigeye tuna (Thunnus obelus), known as Ahi. Fingerlings will be grown on land at the Pacific Aquaculture & Coastal Resources Center (PARC) in Hilo and be transferred to the site when they are approximately 12 inches 5 pounds. The Ahi will be harvested when they aze 100 pounds in size STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 LAURA N. THIELEN awmvHCSON BDNro OF LW D ANU NATIIPAI. P60110.C6 cowassroN w+ wn~ve nlsoucce mwAaEAm+'r RUESELL Y. TSUJI HPSl~nIY KEN C.KAWAHARA OfAIIYNWFGIOR. WATpf AQNATC P60URCT5 WATPIC ANDIX:F/~N MSPCAT WN RURPAROV CgrvernNCPs COM165pNON WAilA 8FSg1YCIlMANAGflffit~ CWISIXVAIpN AN4COASIALIANw4 Cgb'fRVATgN A!ID ALSOIIRC'6 BiPoRCfT1INf N~ NPFSI0.YAND Wn-IhE 116fORCP1IFSFRVATbN KARWIAW6IDAlNRESHIVRCOPAIL6~N LWO srATe rv~es CDUA: HA-3495 Acceptance Date: January 30, 2009 180-Day Exp. Date: July 29, 2009 ItEF:000L:DH CDUA:HA-3495 at which time they will be harvested at sea, processed, and prepared at Hilo and Kawaihae Harbors for shipping to the US mainland, Japan, and Hawaii mazkets. The operation is to be fully functional by 2014. Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. is asking for safety reasons that all fisherman and boaters keep 100 feet from each of the twelve oceanspehere's surface buoy; fisherman will be allowed to fish around the oceanspheres but not directly above them; the public will be asked not to swim or SCUBA dive anywhere in the ocean lease area. The OCCL notes the submerged land is located in the State Land Use {SLU) Conservation District, Resource subzone. The proposed use is an identified land use in the Resource subzone of the Conservation District, pursuant to Section 13-5-24, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), R-1, AQUACULTURE, D-1, "aquaculture under an approved management plan " After reviewing the application, we find that: 1. The proposed use is an identified land use (R-1, AQUACULTURE, D-1) within the Resource subzone of the Conservation District, according to Section 13-5-24, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR); please be advised, however, that this finding does not constitute approval of the proposal; 2. Pursuant to Section 13-5-40 (3), HAR, a public hearing will be required since the proposed use is of a commercial nature; and 3. In confonnance with Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), as amended, and Chapter 11-200, HAR, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) to the environment is anticipated for the proposed project. The draft environmental impact statement for the project has been submitted to the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC), and will be published in the February 23, 2009 edition of OEQC's Environmental Notice. Pursuant to Chapter 190D-11(b), the Department must issue three public notices stating that the application for a lease for marine activities in state marine waters, has been received. In addition to the $350.00 submitted for the application and public hearing fee, you will be required to remit any additional fees for the cost of the public notices which are required under Section 190D- 11(b), HRS. As part of the Boazd of Land and Natural Resources evaluation of your application, we request information related to the two criteria listed in Section 190D-11(e). Specifically: (1) The applicant has the capacity to carry out the entire project; and (2) The proposed project is clearly in the public interest upon consideration of the overall economic, social, and environmental impacts. 2 REF:000L:DH CDUA:HA3495 Your cooperation and eazly response to this matter will be appreciated, and will help facilitate the processing of your application. Your CDUA will be placed on the agenda of the BLNR for their consideration after all reviews and evaluations of the proposal have been made. Should you have any questions regazding this letter please call Dawn Hegger of the OCCL staff at 587-0380. Sincerely, Attachment (receipt) c: Chairperson Hawaii Boazd Member Hawaii District Land Office County of Hawaii Department of Planning Mayors Office County Council DOH/OHA/DOA - Aquaculture Program DAR/DOFAWlDOCARE/HPD/DOBOR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service CZM -John Nakagawa ~~ ~L RA H. THI LEN, Chairperson B d of Land and Natural Resources CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12!26/2008 CONSERVATION DISTRICT USE APPLICATION STATE MARINE WATERS For DLNR Use File # Reviewed by Date Accepted by Date 180-Day Exp. EA/EIS Required PH Required TYPE OF PERMIT BOARD PERMIT DEPARTMENTAL PERMIT SITE PLAN APPROVAL Project Location Kohala Coast approximately three miles (2.6 nautical miles) due south west of Malae Point District: North Kohala County: County of Hawaii Island: Island of Hawaii Commencement Date: January 1.2010 Completion Date: N/A REQUIRED SIGNATURES STATE OF HAWAII Chairperson: Laura elen State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, Haw i`'^96 -0 2 ~ignature: (Applicant -leave blank) O TETRA TECH ENCLOSURE 3 Responses to comments received from The Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservations and Coastal Lands in a letter dated July 16, 2007 regarding Conservation District Use Application HA-3429. 1. "The CDUA and DEA do not contain data that is specific to the project area. Thus it is not possible to determine the possible positive and/or negative impacts and whether the proposed mitigation measures are adequate. Lastly, the information provided is too general and not specific in regards to the proposed project " In response to recommendations by DLNR, Hawaii Oceanic Technology has decided to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project. The CDUA and DEA did reference data collected for a similar project in waters off the Island of Hawaii. We feel that the azea under consideration for this proposed project was so similar that using existing data was sufficient. However, in response to this comment we have collected site specific data for water quality, conducted an observational survey of recreational use in the area, and conducted interviews with individuals with long term knowledge of the ocean and adjacent coastal lands. This information is reported in the DEIS in Chapter 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics, Chapter 2.4 Water Quality, Chapter 2.5 Biological Resources, Chapter 2.7 Traffic and Transportation, and Chapter 2.12 Cultural Resources in the DEIS and on pages 11-16, pages 24-29, and pages 33-45 of the CDUA application. The data confirms that the project will have little or no impact on water quality, recreational use, and cultural resources. 2. "The OCCL notes it is unclear whether the proposed project will take place in state marine waters or in waters with federal oversight, and/or both scenarios. Please clarify the issue when resubmitting the CDUA and EIS" The project description on pages 1-4 to 1-8 in Chapter 1 of the DEIS and on page 8 of the CDUA shows the project located three miles (2.6 nm) southwest of Malae Point, entirely within State Marine Waters and outside of the United States territorial sea. 3. "Please provide larger scale maps that identify the locations that are discussed in the CDUA and EIS." Larger scale maps were provided where appropriate throughout the documents. 4. "CDUA pg. 7 and pg. 9 note the tops of the platform will be 60 feet (18.29 meters) below the surface; CDUA pg. 15 notes the platforms are submerged to 180 foot depth. The Management Plan notes the platforms will be submerged to depth below 60 feet. Clarify the depth data information; provide diagram of platform and accessories as noted; and provide second diagram of platform and accessories in relation to use of entire water column area and provide measurements of the area utilized for the proposed project " The CDUA and DEIS have been revised to clarify that the depth of the top of the platforms is 65 feet, or 20 meters. A diagram showing the platform and accessories has also been included on pages TETRA TECH 1-10 and 1-11 in Chapter 1 of the DEIS and page 32 of the CDUA. These figures also show the location of the platform within the water column. On page 1-12 of the DEIS, there is also an artist rendering of the platform to show human scale. 5. `Provide a diagram of platform and accessories (radio antenna, GPS receiver, navigational beacon, flexible surface tube)" See response to comment 4 and the figure below. I ~, n':zc-i lai -p ~lev'r}i J. - YrY 1. _: Y e ~ _.a. n 'nq LG aht Orf:l: eam P111y h:nct caeA koae r5l Die k, '(... +n..crt.a [erztl -e.. ben Lccr;;,or, af' ~. _..MC_ Cenco n•cc .rt R.c __ Dt= .._er:" __¢-F YIJ SQL Ccnc no. G •_o ~___ 126 a -- ~. li:l.c~ I.I ~Ei 6. "Provide a diagram of the propulsion system." The figure shown for comment 5 above shows the location of the "Duplicate Fully Enclosed Reversible X,Y, Z Tunnel Thrusters." A discussion of the system is contained on page 32 of the CDUA and on pages 1-13 to 1-15 in Chapter 1 of the DEIS. 7. "Provide a diagram of Sterling OTEC engine and/or propane engine to be used." The Stirling OTEC engine will be used. See response to comment 6 above. z O -r~~-RaTECH Diagram of Persistent Ocean Power. Persistent Ocean Power (POP) produces work from a thermodynamic heat sink (left) and employs a Stirling engine cycle to efficiently produce electricity (right). WORK S. "Describe the "ocean sail" mentioned in the emergency plan to stop the platform from moving away." This is described in the Emergency Response Plan in the CDUA and it is also described in the 1-12 of the DEIS. An ocean sail is a sea anchor that will be deployed if the true position exceeds the programmed position by 100 meters or more, or upon failure of the propulsion system. In addition, a warning signal will be relayed to the ground station. The sea anchor will be deployed to slow the drift of the platform in the surface current. T'he sea anchor is made of cloth and shaped like a parachute. When deployed, the sea anchor will float just under the platform., and the water moving past the sea anchor will keep it filled to resist drift. Onboard monitors will send a signal to the monitoring station that a problem has occurred. The incident will be immediately reported to the US Coast Guard The Oceansphere mozutors will dispatch a work boat to the area and the salvage ship will be on call. In most events the work boat will be able to restore the Oceansphere however, a salvage company will be called in the event the work crew can't handle the problem. 3 O TETltATEC@i 9. "Describe the possible velocity, speed, and direction of the platform if the platforms malfunction." This is addressed on page 1-12 of the DEIS. It states that should the propulsion system malfunction the Oceansphere would automatically send a distress signal through the radio telemetry system and remain at depth until salvage crew arrives to retrieve the Oceansphere. The Oceansphere will automatically deploy a deep sea anchor to slow drift. If the buoyancy control system should fail, the Oceansphere is positively buoyant so it would surface on its own for recovery and repair. If the propulsion system were to malfunction the backup system would radio and satellite dispatch velocity, speed, and direction of the Oceansphere to the shore based control station. A salvage crew would be immediately sent to the distressed Oceansphere. Free drifting "subsurface" floating cages will not likely come ashore as ocean currents diverge at ocean-land mazgins (Cliff Goudy, MIT Professor, as per. comm..). Also of note the Oceansphere, is mostly an empty structure with less then a 30 % surface area foot print and 70% of the current will pass directly through the mesh. A salvage company will be retained to retrieve the Oceansphere upon failure. By inspecting the average currents in the North Kohala azea (see Appendix C) in a total systems failure, in a one knot current, the Oceansphere will most likely move less than one mile per hour, in a North West drrection in a trajectory to eventually pass hundreds of miles south of Oahu. However, the Oceansphere will be recovered within a few hour of failure by the 24/7 dispatch marine salvage company, such as the work boat the "Raven" operating out of Honokohau Hazbor. 10. "Provide a diagram of the GPSQnertial Navigation System (INS) and radio telemetry control; Provide research data for the radio telemetry. Has it been used before? Where?° A diagram of the GPS/Inertial Navigation System (INS) and radio telemetry control is shown below. There is no research data available for this system. This system has not been used for this particular application before, however the use of GPS is commonly used for locations identification. See answer to question 11 below for more detail. a~ -- ~ ~: ~ Global Positioning i"~ /~ System and Satellite i~ Communication _~ i• Radio Telemetry ;~ Control Station Transducer ----•--------~----~- .-------.... Acoustic/Optical ® TETRA TECH 11. "Provide a diagram of the Persistent Oceanic Power (POP) generator (provisional patent #850,855) and electric pump; Provide research data: Has it been used before? Where?" Persistent Ocean Power is described on pages 1-13 to 1-15 of the DEIS. As discussed there, the platform will be powered by a highly efficient air independent Stirling type heat sink engine (See answer to question 6 above). The propulsion and power generation system is similar to a modern diesel electric (D/E powertrain) submarine in layout but smaller and more efficient. The fuelcell/ Stirling engine will replace the diesel engine and maintain banks of Lithium batteries that connect to high efficient distributed electric thruster motors for propulsion. A secondary electrical path will lead off from the batteries to the recharging system and the power monitoring for the onboard electronics such as the navigation control and communications system. All power generation and routing will be directed by an onboard computer that will efficiently monitor the platform needs. A gyro inertial system will be employed when satellite communication isn't available to position the platform. Cold seawater pumped from 540 feet below the surface will act as a heat sink for the Stirling engine. The Stirling engine will generate electricity for use in the central water jet thruster and distributed electric thrusters. The water will also be used as a central water jet thruster to position the Oceansphere. With this power source the platform can submerge to predetermined depths, and communicate with the GPS and other platforms while submerged. Modem Stirling prime movers are external combustion engines which consistently demonstrate higher efficiency, multifuel capability, lower exhaust emissions, quieter operation, equivalent power density, and superior torque characteristics than other engines. A number of engine designs are currently commercially available. Stirling Energy Systems has a 25 Kilo Watt engine which is available for purchase. A seagoing vessel is subject to the forces of wind, waves and current and those generated by the propulsion system. In a dynamic positioning system the response to these forces in terms of changes in position, heading and speed, aze measured by position-reference systems, gyrocompass and vertical reference sensors. The dynamic positioning system calculates the forces that the thrusters must produce in order to control the vessel's motion. The dynamic positioning systems controller calculates the resulting force to be exerted by the thrusters/propellers in order for the vessel to remain on station. High Precision dynamic positioning systems control provides high accuracy station-keeping in any weather condition. Dynamic positioning started in the 1960s for offshore drilling. In 1961 the drillship Cuss 1 was fitted with four steerable propellers, in an attempt to drill the fast Moho well. It was possible to keep the ship in position above the well off La Jolla, California, at a depth of 948 meters. After this, off ,the coast of Guadalupe, Mexico, five holes were drilled, the deepest at 183 m (601 ft) below the sea floor in 3,500 m (11,700 ft) of water, while maintaining a position within a radius of 180 meters. The ship's position was determined by radar ranging to buoys and sonaz ranging from subsea beacons. O TETRA TEC!-1 Whereas the Cuss I was kept in position manually, later in the same yeaz Shell launched the drilling ship Eureka that had an analogue control system interfaced with a taut wire, making it the first true DP ship. While the first DP ships had analogue controllers and lacked redundancy, since then vast improvements have been made. Besides that, DP nowadays is not only used in the oil industry any more, but on various other types of ships. In addition, DP is not limited to maintaining a fixed position any more. One of the possibilities is sailing an exact track, useful for cablelay, pipelay, survey and other tasks. Present Day Applications for Dynamic Positioning Systems * Drill ships * Cable-laying vessels * Crane vessels * Cruise ships * Diving support vessels * Dredging * FPSO's * Flotels * Maritime research vessels * Mega yachts * Mine sweepers * Pipe laying vessels * Platform supply vessels * Rock dumping vessels * Survey ships * Supply vessels * Shuttle tankers 12. "Discuss why seawater will be pulled up to power the dynamic positioning system hybrid engine." Cold seawater will act as a heat sink for the Stirling engine. The Sfirling engine will generate electricity for use in the central water jet thruster and distributed electric thrusters. The water will also be used as a central water jet thruster to position the cage. See more information in the response to comment 11. 13. "Provide research data regarding the broadcast radio waves" A radio telemetry system is made up of WiMax technology and operates in the frequency band is 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz. The communication system includes an ornni directional antenna on the platform and a directional antenna on the shore. This system is a standazd telemetry system commonly used. ® TETRA TECH 14.'°Discuss and provide a diagram of the platform in the water surface column and provide measurements of the area utilized for the proposed project " The CDUA and DEIS have been revised to clarify that the depth of the top of the platforms is 65 feet (20 meters). A diagram showing the platform and accessories is shown above in response to Comment #5, and it has also been included on page 1-10 and page 1-11 in Chapter 1 of the DEIS and page 32 of the CDUA. These figures also show the location of the platform within the water column. There is also an artist rendering of the platform to show human scale on page 1-12 of the DEIS. r ?~ ~ 40 m v ~ ~~ 80 m 120 m 1a0 m 200 m 6m LO:n 400 m 15. "Provide a description of the seafloor in the project area" A detailed description of the seafloor can be found on pages 2-17 to 2-20 in Chapter 2.2, Geology, Sediments, Soils, and Topography of the DEIS. As concluded in the DEIS on page 2-20, the bottom is considered to tae relatively flat rocky basalt bottom with patches of coazse sand. See pages 33-34, and 39 in the CDUA. 16. "Number of hours the surface cages will be raised?" The platform will be raised once a month for a four hour periods. This is to refill feed canister, refuel and clean the netting. A video camera will seazch for mortalities which will be removed as necessary. 17. "Provide specific to the project area: water current data, recreational data, and water movements." An ocean current study was done for the DEIS and is included as an appendix. Information on ocean currents is provided in Chapter 2.4 Water Quality in the DEIS. Data on recreation use gathered from observational surveys on site, as well as interviews with long time users can be found ® TETRATECH in Chapter 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics, Chapter 2.5 Biological Resources, Chapter 2.7 Traffic and Transportation, and Chapter 2.11 Cultural Resources in the DEIS and on pages 9 and 10, and pages 43-45 of the CDUA application. 18. "Was a current meter placed in the project area for current data?" Data from existing sources was used and is described in the ocean current study appended to the DEIS and in Chapter 2.4, Water Quality in the DEIS. 19. "Provide longitude and latitude coordinates for the four corners of the proposed 150- acre exclusive site and 300-acre lease site" As described in the DEIS and CDUA, the requested ocean lease site is 247 acres, or one square kilometer. The Project summary on page 1-2 states that the four corners are located at 20°05'53.72" N 155°55'55.68" W; 20°05'53.72" N 155°55'24.36" W; 20°05'26.04" N 155°55'24.36" W; and 20°05'26.04" N 155°55'55.68" W. This information can also be found on figure 1-1 of the revised CDUA application and figure 1-3 on page 1-8 of the DEIS. 20. "Provide research data for the broadcast radio identification frequency. Is there underwater noise data? Has this technology been used before?" There will be no transmission through the water. Each unit will send data from it's antenna to shore. A WiMax system will be used which doesn't require a permit as it is a commonly used system. It provides 54 megabits/second connection has a range of 12 miles if the ocean antenna is high up enough to avoid wave blockage to shore. The remote units run on power from the platform. The shore unit has a 90 degree beam and the ocean unit is omnidirectional. The shore base antenna will be connected to a DSL line to HawaiianTel on shore and connecting it to this unit to form a private network and the shore office and shore station into the backbone with a T3 connection of 43.232 megabits/sec. 21. "Current data, research and/or survey regarding recreational users, boat traffic, etc.?" Please see response to Comment 17. 22. "Number of hours the platform(s) and number of platforms brought to the surface for cleaning?" Please see response to Comment 16. 23. "Will both species be raised in the cage together? What will the distribution per cage of Bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna?" The species will not be raised together. They will be raised in sepazate Oceanspheres segregated by species. 24. "Where will the broodstock come from for the Bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna?" The broodstock which will be used for eggs for the hatchery will be caught in the waters surrounding Hawaii Island The brood stock will be replenished iegulazly with about seven individuals caught annually. ® TETRA TECH 25. "What is the Seafood Hazard Analysis and Critica- Control Point approved fishing boat?" HACCP is an FDA standard for fish processing facilities. As described in the DEIS and CDUA, the vessel used to harvest the fish will not need to be HACCP approved as there will be no processing on boazd. The fish will be put on ice and brought to Kawaihae Hazbor for transshipment to Kona to an existing commercial fish processing vendor, or if needed, the harvest vessel will bring the fish to Hilo Hazbor, for transshipment to an existing Hilo-based fish processing vendor. Harvesting methodology is discussed on page 23 and page 55 of the CDUA, as well as pages 1-17 and 1-18 in the DEIS. 26. "Will SCUBA divers or Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) monitor the fish for pathology? What is the required training needed to monitor fish? What will the time schedule for HIMB to visit the platforms? As discussed on pages 1-16 and 1-17 of the DEIS, fish health will be monitored by video and SCUBA divers. There is no specialized training required to monitor for fish mortality. When mortalities are retrieved they will be sent to HIMB fish biologists to determine the cause of death. HIMB biologist will not visit the platforms. 27. "Breakdown of production level of each cage year 2008 2 cages, year 2009 4 cages, year 2010 6 cages, and year 2010 with 12 cages." Our current projection is that when fully operational, the total annual production capacity will be 6,000 tons. We will not harvest all at once, but will spread out the harvesting throughout the yeaz so as not to flood the market with product. Our current deployment schedule allows for our first Oceansphere in the water in 2010, two in 2011, four in 2012, and five in 2013. The Oceanspheres will be stocked in place and grow-out will take one year, so we will not be in full production until 2014 at the eazliest. Our production schedule is estimated at 1,000 tons of Ahi in 2012, 3,000 tons in 2013, 6,000 tons in 2014. 28. "Discuss the internal platform's volume" The cage volume is 61,805 cubic meters, stocking density is 1 fish per 3.1 cubic meters and the cage production is 1,000 tons of Ahi per yeaz. 29. "Management Plan, Exhibit 3, discuss the reporting schedule." In the Management Plan we stated that we would develop a reporting schedule of sites and sampling in consultation with the State DOH Clean Water Branch. However, we will perform monthly sampling of environmentally important water quality parameters and report water quality testing results once a month. 30. "How many additional boats will be needed beyond the operations proposed two boats?" There will be four boats total, three work boats as described and one feed and harvest boat as described in the CDUA and DEIS. O TETRA TECH 31. "Provide a diagram of the feed system? A diagram of the feed system is provided below. Chapter 1 of the DEIS. e'eed Mechanized Dispenser Cencrtl rGruster 13 so9 Fuel What is the proposed feeding schedule?" The feeding schedule is described on page 1-16 in Control System Feed Bin Mechani eed Dispenser aliquot volume Dispensed Fead water yet Power Generator 1 Batteries eovyancy Control System Deep Natee Flow 32. "What is the proposed maintenance (daily, biweekly to monthly)?" Aa described on pages 1-16 and 1-17 of the DEIS, each vessel (platform) will be serviced and feed canisters replaced once a month. Fish maintenance (fish health video and SCUBA monitoring and mortality removal) and water quality in-situ monitoring will be done daily. 33. "What is the estimated cumulative mortality rate percentage?" The estimated cumulative mortality rate is less then 1%. 34. "Fish will be harvested after reaching 200 pounds -weekly? Monthly?" As discussed on pages 1-17 and 1-18 of the DEIS, fish will be harvested after reaching 100 pounds. Harvesting will take place throughout the year. All Oceanspheres will not be harvested at once, but will be spread out throughout the yeaz so as not to flood the mazket with product. 35. "The CDUA and DEA notes the feed tubes will be inserted into the cage(s) but CDUA pg. 14 notes the "platforms will be brought to the surface one at a time for certain types of maintenance, stocking, feeding, and harvesting operations -Please clarify." The feeding system has been modified to use a removable canister or feed bin. The empty canister will be removed and a full canister inserted when the platforms are brought to the surface for maintenance. This reduces the chances for spillage and waste. The CDUA and DEIS have be revised to reflect this change. Please see the response to comment 31 for more information. 10 ® TETFtQTECH 36. "Is the proposed project located inside or outside the Hawaii Island Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Area?" The site is outside the Sanctuary as shown on Figure I-1 in the CDUA and DEIS. In addition to the July 16, 20071etter from DLNR, DLNR also wrote another letter of February 13, 2008 that reiterated the same comments as the July 16, 2007 letter. These include the following: 37. "The OCCL notes due to the scope and magnitude of the proposed project we suggest the applicant prepare an Environmental Impact Statement " In response to this recommendation, anEIS has been prepazed instead of an EA. 38. "The Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) does not assess the entire proposed project." The DEIS was expanded to address the entire proposed project. 39. "The OCCL re-iterates the CDUA and DEA do not adequately identify the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed project or the potential cumulative effects of open ocean aquaculture in the west Hawaii area." The DEIS and CDUA have been revised to address the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed project. Chapter 2 of the DEIS presents detailed information on the short term and long term effects for different resources. Pages 2-3 to 2-26 of the DEIS provide an analysis of the cumulative impacts. 40. "The CDUA and DEA do not contain data specific to the project area." Please see responses to comments 1, 15 and 17. 41. "For example, regarding Section 2.3.1 Affected Environment -Recreation, the department e%pects to see a site specific survey in the ocean, regarding the recreation and/or commercial use of the area. Therefore, at the very least, we expect to see data from a boat located in the proposed project area, taking a count of recreational users." In the DEIS on pages 2-27, 2-76 and 2-77, the vessel survey is described, which provides site specific data for recreational use of the Proposed Acfion site. The technique used is a scientifically acceptable shore based observational methodology used by the marine mammal research community and is described on page 2-27 (see NOAA website http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/NMML) 11 O TETRA TECH 42. "The department notes the three areas (water quality parameters, ocean currents, and marine biota) should have site-specific survey or studies that should be documented and appendices to the DEA to show relevant data, and to answer questions the community and government agencies may have." The DEIS and CDUA have been revised to include additional data to better characterize the proposed ocean lease site. This additional information has been incorporated into the DEIS and CDUA, as well as a report on ocean currents appended to the DEIS. Please see responses to comments 1 above and DEIS Chapter 2.4 for water quality parameters, comment 17 above and DEIS Chapter 2.4 and DEIS Appendix C for ocean currents, and comment 15 above and DEIS Chapter 2.2 and 2.5 for marine biota. 43. "The OCCL asked you to respond to our July 16, 20071etter, regarding the proposed project. These quesfions should be incorporated into the submitted CDUA, DEA, and Management Plan, if not already done so." As described in the response to DLNR comments 1-36, the DEIS and CDUA have addressed the concerns expressed in the July 16, 20071etter. 44. "Provide a diagram of Sterling OTEC engine and/or propane engine to be used." Please see response to comment 7 above. 45. "Provide diagram of "ocean sail" mentioned in the emergency plan to stop the platform from moving away." Please see response to comment 8 above. 46. "Provide a diagram of the Persistent Oceanic Power (POP) generator (provisional patent # 850,855 and electric pump. Please see response to comment 5 and comment 6 above. A final letter of August 8, 2008 was sent by DLNR. Comments were the same as previous letters with the addition of the two following comments: 47. "The OCCL would like to remind you that pursuant to Section 190D-11(e) HRS, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) shall not approve an application unless it finds that: 1) the applicant has the capacity to carry out the entire project; and 2) whether the proposed project is clearly in the public interest upon consideration of the overall economic, social, and environmental impacts." The CDUA and DEIS both address issues relevant to this determination. Specifically, please refer to the CDUA on pages 16 and 17 for a description of the company's capacity to carry out the entire project. Also, please refer to pages 17-19 for a discussion of how this proposed project is in the public interest. ~z 0 CONSERVATION DISTRICT USE APPLICATION STATE MARINE WATERS p INSTRUCTIONS This is the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL), marine activities Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) far use of State Marine Waters. Marine activities are defined as, "ocean thermal energy conversion O (OTEC); mariculture; and other energy or water, research, scientific, and educational activities in, on, or under state marine waters or submerged lands." Mariculture means the cultivation and production for research, development, and demonstration purposes of plants and animals within the State's marine environment. Visit httg://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/occl/ for more information about the State Land Use (SLU) Conservation District. O Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Chapters 183C, and Chapter 190D, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) regulates marine activities by the issuance of a CDUA Permit. The applicant must also contact the appropriate Land Division office to lease marine waters for marine activities. For a detailed discussion of Ocean Leasing procedures refer to Part III 190D-21 titled leasing of state marine waters and submerged lands for private uses. All marine activities that require a CDUA and lease request for marine activities be filed with the Q DLNR, and approved by the BLNR prior to project implementation. The following provisions apply to HRS, Section 190D-21, LEASING OF STATE MARINE WATERS AND SUBMERGED LANDS FOR PRIVATE USES notes: a) the board may lease state marine waters and submerged lands for marine activities O upon compliance with Section 171-53 and with the concurrence of the director of transportation. Leases may only be issued only for marine activities, which are allowed pursuant to an approved conservation district use application. The board shall make a determination that each lease is a commercial or noncommercial lease; ~ O (b) the board shall not lease state marine waters when existing programs of the department, such as the marine life conservation district program, shoreline fisheries management area program, or the natural area reserves program will suffer adverse impacts as a consequence of the proposed activities; provided further that no lease shall be awarded within state marine waters designated necessary for national defense purposes, as determined by the department in consultation with the appropriate federal p agencies; 10 c) the board shall not lease state marine waters or submerged lands unless the board finds that the lease for the proposed activity is clearly in the public interest upon consideration of the overall economic, social, and environmental impacts and consistent with other state policy goals and objectives; d) the board shall not lease state marine waters or submerged lands unless the board finds that the applicant for a lease has complied with applicable federal, state, and county statutes, ordinances, and rules; e) the board may require any person who has obtained approval of a conservation district use application for marine activities or the operation of an OTEC facility in state 10 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 marine waters or submerged lands to enter into a lease for the conduct of those activities; and f) the Board shall not approve an application, if in so doing it would fail to protect the public's use and enjoyment of the reefs in the state marine waters. Please utilize applicable sections of Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 13-5, Conservation District Rules and Regulations, and HRS, Chapter 190D-21 to complete the CDUA. A CDUA is not considered accepted for processing until the department has found the O application to be complete and issues an acceptance letter. All, applications must include the following to be considered "complete" for processing • A completed CDUA form. Where the landowner is the State of Hawaii, the application ~ requires the signature of the Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources; • Environmental review information required pursuant to HRS, Department of Health (DOH), Chapter 343; • Compliance with applicable County Special Management Area (SMA) Rules and Regulations must be satisfied prior to action on the CDUA; and • The appropriate filing fees as specified pursuant to HAR, Chapter 13-5, Section 13-5- p 32, FEES. Twenty (20) copies of the completed CDUA and all attachments, and twenty (20) copies of the environmental assessment (EA) as required must be submitted. Applications should be typed and attachments should be reduced or folded to letter-size exhibit(s) (8'/~" x 11 "). Ap'plication(s) and attachment(s) should be mailed to: or hand delivered to: O Department of Land and Natural Resources Offce of Conservation and Coastal Lands Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Kalanimoku Building, Room 220 O P.O. Box 621 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 For information call: 587-0377. You may download the CDUA and HAR, Chapter 13-5, Conservation District Rules and Regulations at http://www state hi us/dlnr/occl/documents oho O REQUIRED INFORMATION Fo,lr information presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA), please reproduce and attach relevant information in the CDUA. For large projects that require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the CDUA must be supplemented with detailed project and environmental information. p 1. County Special Management Area Determination Applications may be subject to County Special Management Area (SMA) requirements. One of the following must be received from the applicable County thirty (30) days prior to ~ Board action on your CDUA: 2 O ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 212 612 00 8 • A determination that the proposed land use(s) is outside the Special Management Area (SMA) administered by the County; p A determination that the proposed land use is exempt from the provisions of the County ordinances/regulations specific to HRS, Section 205A-29 (b); and • A Special Management Area permit for the proposed use. (Note: An SMA permit or clearance must be received by the Department forty-five (45) days prior to the 180 day expiration deadline on an application.) ~ 2. Maps Maps should include a north arrow and graphic scale. Attach regional, vicinity and parcel maps. Utilities, roads and access should be presented on a map and applicable. Marine biota, and historic sites should also be presented on a map. Submit detailed contour maps O for ocean areas and areas where slopes are 20% or more. Include a bathometric map or depth chart. 3. Photographs Current color photographs of the area should be submitted with each EA/CDUA. Electronic p storage of information such as computer floppies and/or Cd Roms should be provided to the OCCL to help expedite the processing of applications. 4. Plans All CDUAs, and EAs shall contain the following associated plans: O Location/Area Plan. Site Plan. Emergency Response Plan. Business Plan. Management Plan. ~ See attachments for associated plans. 5. Environmental Requirements Pursuant to HRS, Department of Health (DOH), Chapter 343, and in accordance with HAR, O Title 11, Chapter 200, Environmental Impact Statement Rules for applicant actions, a Draft EA of the proposed use must be attached. The FEA must be published forty-five (45) days prior to the 180-day expiration deadline. A FEA or EIS provided at the time of submission of the CDUA will satisfy this requirement. Failure to meet this deadline may result in negative action on the applicant by the BLNR. If your proposed use is likely to have significant impacts and requires an EIS, pursuant to HAR, Title 11, Chapter 200, Section 12, please O confer with the OCCL prior to submitting the CDUA. If the proposed actions are within the scope of exemptions as defined in the DOH's, HRS, Title 11, Chapter 200, the applicant should provide written justification for the exemption to forego this process. Refer to HAR, Chapter 200, Section 11-200-8. For more information, O contact the Office of Environmental Quality Control at (808) 586-4185 or visit www. state. h i. us/health/oegc. O CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 C 6. Conservation District Use Application (CDUA) fees Pursuant to HAR, Chapter 13-5, Section 13-5-32, FEES, applications must be accompanied 0 by filing fees in the form of cash, certified check or cashier's check and payable to the State of Hawaii. Board Permit $100.00 application fee, plus an additional $100.00 per potential developed acre, or major fraction thereof, up to a maximum of $2,000.00. p Departmental Permit Site Plan Aooroval $50.00 application fee $50.00 fee Emergency Permit Temporary Variance Waived $100.00 fee O A Public Hearing fee of $250.00 will be required, pursuant to HAR, Chapter 13-5, Section 13-5-40, HEARINGS. A Public Hearing(s) shall be held for all applications involving the following: O • On all applications for a proposed use of land for commercial purposes; • On changes of subzone, changes on identified land use, or any amendments to this chapter; • On applications requiring a Board permit in the protective subzone; and • On all applications determined by the Chairperson that the scope of the proposed use, or the public interest requires a public hearing on the application. O U Q O 4 ~ ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 O CONSERVATION DISTRICT USE APPLICATION STATE MARINE WATERS For DLNR Use O File # Reviewed by Date Accepted by Date 180-Day Exp. EA/EIS Required PH Required 10 TYPE OF PERMIT O BOARD PERMIT X DEPARTMENTAL PERMIT SITE PLAN APPROVAL ' O Project Location Kohala Coast approximately three miles (2.6 nautical miles) due south west of Malae Point District: North Kohala County: County of Hawaii O Island: Island of Hawaii Commencement Date: January 1, 2010 Completion Date: N/A REQUIRED SIGNATURES O STATE OF HAWAII Chairperson: Laura Thielen State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 p Honolulu, Hawaii 96809-0621 Signature: (Applicant -leave blank) 10 5 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 C APPLICANT Legal Name: Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. Street Address: 425 South Street, #2902 City, State and Zip+4 Code: Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Mailing Address: 425 South Street, #2902 City, State and Zip+4 Code: Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Contact Person & Title: Bill Spencer, CEO Phone No.: (808) 225-3579 Fax No.: (808) 528-4751 Email: bspencer@hawaii.rr.com Interest in Property: Lease for an open ocean aquaculture project for a commercial 'Ififor a Corporation, Partnership, Agency or Organization, must be signed by an authorized officer. PROPERTY OWNER (If other than the applicant) Legal Name: State ofHawai`i Street Address: 1151 Punchbowl Street City, State and Zip+4 Code: Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 621 City, State and Zip+4 Code: Honolulu, Hawaii 96809-0621 Cointact Person & Title: Laura Thielen Phone No.:(808) 587-0377 Faz No.:(808) 587-0390 to applicant: None ~ - AGENT Name: Tetra Tech, Inc. Mailing Address: 737 Bishop Street, Suite 3020 City, State and Zip+4 Code: Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813 Colntact Person & Position: George Redpath, Associate Director Phone No.: (808) 533-3366 Fax No.: (808) 533-3306 Email: george.redpath@tetratech.com Signature Date (To be determined ac a later date.) E E ~e of Work: ing Address: tact Person & Position ne No.:( 1 No.:(~ =ncy Contact Information my/Organization Name: Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. t Person and Title: Paul Troy, CTO No.: (808) 388-7600 Phone No.: (808) 328-9113 Contractor I.D. # O Q O O O O O O 6 O d CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12126/2008 PROPOSED USE O Please provide a statement of the purpose for the project. The purpose of the proposed action is to meet the high demand for fish by providing a sustainable source of high quality, pure, clean tuna using Open Ocean Aquaculture. It has been reported that populations of large predatory fish in Hawaiian waters and the global ocean, including tuna, have been reduced to 90 percent of pre-industrial levels and that populations of O exploited fish are predicted to vanish by 2048 (R. A. Myers and B. Worm 2003). Although these findings have been challenged (Hampton et al. 2005), world tuna catches are declining (FAO 2007), even in the face of increasing worldwide fishing efforts (Hilo Fisherman Robert Cabos person. comm. 2007). The primary markets for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi will be California and Japan, with a portion of the product being sold into the Hawaii market. Current O demand for yellowfin and bigeye tuna in these three markets contributes to the fishing pressure on the natural stocks. Hawaii has a market of about 3,307 tons (3,000 metric tonnes) per year, where nearly 10.03 tons (9.1 metric tonnes) are consumed during the Christmas and New Year holidays. Through Open Ocean Aquaculture, Hawaii Oceanic Technology will provide a viable alternative source for yellowfin and bigeye tuna for local and export markets, as well as I O strengthen and diversify the Hawaii economy. The proposed action is an aquaculture farm raising yellowfin and bigeye tuna, segregated by species, in submerged self-powered un-tethered 54m-diameter cages called "Oceanspheres" in a 247-acre ocean lease site, 1,320-feet deep, 2.6 nautical-miles offshore Malae Point, North O Kohala. Twelve Oceanspheres will be deployed incrementally over four years, using careful observation and monitoring to ensure compliance with environmental standards, culminating with an annual production capacity of 6,000 tons by 2014. Fingerlings will be grown in land- based tanks at the Pacific Aquaculture & Coastal Resources Center (PACRC) in Hilo from eggs collected from locally-caught broodstock. The 12-inch, 5-pound fingerlings will be transferred O by vessel to the Oceanspheres, and grown to 100-pound harvest size using dry fish feed through automated feed dispensers. The land base for operations and maintenance equipment, vessels, and staff will be Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. Tuna will be harvested at sea for transshipping through Kawaihae or Hilo Harbor to existing fish processing and packaging vendors for air- freight to US mainland, Japan, and Hawaii markets. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology proposes to produce ahigh-quality, high-grade sustainable source of protein in an environmentally sensitive manner. A high tech aquaculture system will be developed that produces a superior product by raising fish from hatchling to ready-to-market product under controlled conditions of feeding and harvesting. Project design will allow for maintaining water quality, with high dilution of effluent through natural circulation in deep O ocean waters, use of formulated feeds, recycling of metabolic products, and use of renewable/thermal energy for power needs. O 7 O CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 d CHAPTER190D REQUIREMENTS Describe the location and boundaries of the state marine waters to be used, and the nature of the use desired. Describe if the proposed project requires exclusive use and acreage required. Designate the area on aerial photographs, maps, charts and other diagrams that describe the proposed area of use. Hawaii Oceanic Technology intends to raise 6,000 tons (5,443 metric tonnes) per year of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and/or bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in an open ocean location segregated by species in twelve submerged Oceanspheres when fully operational by 2013. Both of these species are referred to as Ahi by the local Hawaii community. The proposed ocean lease site is approximately 247 acres of State Marine Waters off of the North Kohala Coaist, approximately three miles (2.6 nautical miles) due southwest of Malae Point in waters about 1,320 feet deep (402.34 meters). The centerpoint of the lease site is located at 20°05'40.00" N 155°55'40.00" W. The four corners are located at 20°05'53.72" N 155°55'55.68" W; ~!~20°05'53.72" N 155°55'24.36" W; 20°05'26.04" N 155°55'24.36" W; and 20°05'26.04" N 155 55'55.68" W. ,~ ~ N ~ „~ ~ ,~ ~• m , 1 ,„~~ '~ OOA Site 1 '~ ,'°' 247 acre ! s ..,t _ :; - .. fbi ~.,` r& ~ m 'f m r-f:try `.. ~zo - a, ~'.H~ ~~ ~ ~= w rn ....~._arlr±~ -\ - ... , .111 .W ~1 y. 'Y __ _ •t +A '~Q ~l fl~ubce Yil~~ ' ` \ ~ f - ~ • e ._ . ~ . 2~0 YW~ .. r'n mm Figure 1. Proposed Action: Preferred Site 1 Malae Point. Map of proposed Open Ocean Aquaculture Site (blue region) and the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS) (purple region). (Map taken from NOAA HIHWNMS website). 8 O C* O O O D O O O O ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12126/2008 p The Oceanspheres will be three miles offshore and will be outside the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS). The proposed lease site is centered at 20°OS' 40.00" N 155°55' 40.00" W, shown here with spacing of twelve Oceanspheres within the ocean lease site to maximize mixing. The Oceanspheres will be evenly distributed in the lease site, as shown in Figure 2. The water depth at the site is 1,320 feet (402.34 meters); the top ~ of the Oceanspheres will be held at a depth of 65 feet (20 meters) below the water surface. i 156=' S5' 40.tk)" \C~ ~ 247.1cre Ocean Lease Area I //// ~ -------,-,------_--~'- ^R' S' 53.7'-" ~ I N 120" 5' 53.72 N ~ - I isswsz za 6° vt' I 155° 55` 55.68" \\1 ~ ~ I 2.G nm to I ' I ;vlalae Paint I ~ I I O ~ ~ i ~ i 20" 540.00" N j ~ I 1000 m J._ _.._. ___.__.._.._}._.._-...___._-..__..__.-.__.._L.-__...-... (7 _.__..__.-.__._-.-_. i .. ~ i ~ i 3;281 tet.C I ~ ~ I I I 1,320 feet Facer depth '.O I 2f_f 5 26.04" 1 ~ 20" 5' 26.04" N it 155" 55' 55.68'" \\F ~ 155" 55' ?4.36" \k' I ~ IOOi) m _~ O 3,281 feet Figure 2. Map of the Proposed Action at Preferred Site 1. The proposed lease site is centered at 20°OS' 40.00" N 155°55' 40.00" W, shown here with spacing of twelve Oceanspheres within O the ocean lease site to maximize mixing. Fingerlings will be grown out from eggs collected from broodstock caught in coastal waters off the Island of Hawaii and will be supplied in collaboration with the Pacific Aquaculture & Coastal Resources Center (PACRC). Each Oceansphere will be fitted with an automated feed p dispenser. The tuna will be hatched at PACRC and grown to Oceansphere-transferable size in land-based tanks. The tuna will be transferred by a vessel to the Oceanspheres at the proposed ocean lease site when they are approximately 12 inches in length and 5 pounds in weight, and O 9 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 212 6/2 0 0 8 will be grown to approximately one hundred pounds in size. The tuna will be harvested at sea for transshipping through Hilo Harbor and Kawaihae Harbor, to processing and packaging vendors for shipping by air to the US mainland, Japan, and Hawaii markets. Fishermen are allowed to fish around the Oceanspheres, but not above them. For safety reasons, all boaters are asked to keiep 100' from each Oceansphere's surface buoy. For liability reasons, the public is asked not to swim or SCUBA dive anywhere in the ocean lease area. Please submit a statement of the reasons for selecting a proposed location. C The most important reason for selecting the proposed site is the shelter that the Island of Hawaii ati~d the entire island chain provides from seasonal swells generated by North Pacific storms and normal trade winds. This is critical to the safety of the operation as well as to the health of the fish. Rough seas could prevent divers from conducting daily maintenance on the platforms, delivering the feed canisters to the automated feeders, or removing mortalities from within the latf I ddi i ~ p orms. n a t on, the fingerlings will be transported by sea from the PACRC site in Hilo via Hilo Harbor, so the location of the grow-out platforms in waters off the Island of Hawaii will improve survival and reduce operating costs. The lease area is outside of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, which while in the process of developing an aquaculture policy, has yet to take an official stance on these types of projects within sanctuary a O w ters. The area is also outside of the primary shipping lanes but still close enough for large and small boat access for the convenience of the necessary daily trips to the site. The site is also removed from the traditional nearshore and offshore fishing grounds, spinner dolphin resting areas and all designated endangered species critical habitat and essential fish habitat. While deep ocean waters are important for the efficient operation of the new technology, they provide the p added benefit of maximum flushing capabilities to ensure water quality is not adversely impacted. The distance from shore also removes any potential impact to the sensitive reef environment, and nearshore areas where fisheries, like opelu fishing, are concentrated. Finally, he d t a jacent coastal areas are primarily used for ranching purposes, so there are no residential areas nearby. O Include general descriptions of the activities to be conducted, including a specification as to ~ wli ether such activities are commercial or noncommercial, a timetable for construction, deployment and o eration of fa iliti d l d l l , p c es, an p anne eve s of productions. Th'ie proposed project is a commercial venture. Primary construction of the platforms will be done at sub-contractor locations and shipped to the Hawaii Oceanic Technology for assembly on O site in the ocean. Food will be stored in containers at Kawaihae, loaded on to a work vessel and transported to the lease area. The business plan calls for each "Oceansphere" platform to produce 1,000 tons of ahi. At full build-out, total production would be 6,000 tons of Ahi per year ,based onmarket demand. The operation will ramp up slowly, reaching capacity within five years. The O first platform and associated apparatus will be deployed in 2010, with two more platforms deplo ed in 2011 F dditi l l f ill b y . our a ona p at orms w e deployed in 2012 and five platforms in 2013 until all 12 platforms are operational at the lease site. The planned level of production is 1,000 tons of ahi in 2012, 3,000 tons in 2013 and 6,000 tons in 2014. Where the application is for mariculture, a description of the species to be cultivated and O produced. 10 O ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 Yellow fin tuna (Thunnus albacares) (Bonnaterre, 1788) and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obelus) O (Lowe, 1839) will be cultured in open aquaculture platforms called Oceanspheres. Oceanspheres will be stocked with fingerlings raised at the PACRC from eggs derived from locally wild-caught yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Fingerlings will be raised to harvest size, approximately 100 pounds, in two years. O This project will cultivate bigeye and yellowfin tuna for market. Yellowfin and bigeye tunas demand a high price in the market place and the World Wildlife Fund reported that the biological and economic future of the bigeye tuna fishery is at serious risk (Lack, 2007). This trend follows the well documented fate of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, where populations of the western Atlantic have plunged by more than 90 percent since the 1970s, according to the International O Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Aquaculture can provide a replacement technology to satisfy world market demand for tuna and successful spawning of tuna in land based facilities has been achieved with captive yellowfin and bluefin tuna (Margulies et al. 2007a; Sawada et al. 2005, Wexler et al. 2003, Cleanseas Report 2008). Recently, A-marine Kindai Company, Ltd. of Japan, is offering cultured bluefin tuna on the market which is grown at _ the Kinki University Fisheries Laboratory (http://www.a-marine.co.jp/en_company/index.html). The Hawaii Oceanic Technology project is a closed loop aquaculture process which will use captured bigeye and yellowfin tuna to produce fertilized eggs. Seven broodstock tuna will be caught annually. They are caught at sub-adult size of approximately 10 Kg and grown to maturity, of more than two years age and reproductive size for broodstock. The broodstock will O be replaced every two years. Hawaii offers a unique opportunity for tuna culture due to year- round availability of juvenile bigeye tuna and warm oligotrophic coastal waters. All precautions to maintain tuna health such as avoiding human to tuna contact will be practiced. The PACRC facilities include recently-renovated 25-m diameter, circular concrete tanks of approximately 1.9 million liters, which will be used to hold the brood stock. The bigeye will be fed daily and the O tank maintained to grow the tuna to reproductive size. The broodstock will be fed a diet of squid, mackerel and anchovies which are available from local Hilo vendors. The larvae are grown to fingerling size in land based tanks, and then transferred to the Oceansphere. Larvae are fed cultured zooplankton and fingerlings are fed commercial fish feed pellets. O Please provide a statement of the extent to which the proposed activities will interfere with the use of marine waters for the purpose of navigation, fishing, and public recreation. The proposed lease area is located 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) offshore from Malae Point, in 1,320 feet (402.34 meters) of water. With regards to oceanographic conditions and marine life, O this area is indistinguishable from much of the offshore waters of the North Kohala coast. The site is more than two miles from important coastal fishing grounds for opelu, and the trolling lanes for mahi and ono. The proposed ocean lease site is about one mile from the deepest extent of the bottomfishing grounds, and is approximately 10 miles west from the closest State of Hawaii FAD buoy (Buoy XX). The site was specifically chosen to be away from official O shipping lanes that emanate from Kawaihae harbor south of the proposed site. O 11 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 The platforms will also be submerged to a depth of below 65 feet (20 meters), removing any possibility of becoming a hazard to navigation. Due to the distance from land and depth of water, this area is not in the same area where other forms of public recreation take place except perhaps ~ foi deep sea sport fishing. But as mentioned above, this area is indistinguishable from all other waters offshore of the Kohala coast and should not interfere with this activity. Conversely, given the size and total number of platforms and the intention to allow public access in and around the lease area (see description of lease area above), the lease area could become an effective FAD foi• pelagic species, possibly improving commercial, recreational, and charter fishing in the area. C A recreational use survey was conducted in August and September, 2007 for the proposed project regarding recreation use in the proposed project site area. Thirty eight users were surveyed, some by phone and others in person, and represented commercial SCUBA, snorkeling, and sailing operators; commercial and recreational fishers; and private individuals. Only O eighteen percent of the respondents said that they operate along the Kohala Coast between Kawaihae Harbor and Hawi, in the general area of the preferred site, and operate between 0 and 60,0 feet in depth. A little over five percent of the respondents say they regularly operate around XX buoy. Since there is nothing unique about this proposed project site compared to other areas along the coast the actual use at the project site would be even less and the area is too deep for SCUBA diving. O Ari observational survey of recreational activity in the general area north of Malae Point was conducted from July to October 2008. The survey was conducted over 41 hours over 3 weekdays and 3 weekend days. Generally the area has low ocean swells and light trade winds. The timing ofthe survey was selected to ensure that it represented a period of heavy use on a weekend. O During the 6 days of observation at the Proposed Action site, data points were gathered and recorded. Over the course of the survey only one vessel was observed in the lease site at a time and this occurred twice. Most activity in the general Malae Point area consisted of trolling fishing vessels with some recreational dive boats. Most of the dive recreational activities are in shallower water (less than 100 feet) and most of the trolling is performed within one mile of p shore. Few boats are expected to venture out into the Hawaii Oceanic Technology operations area, which would be located 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) out to sea. Over the survey period, vessel use in the lease site averages 0 vessels, with a 0.147 standard deviation, and 2.2 percent prtibabiliry of finding a vessel in the lease site area. Barge traffic utilizes a route that places the bai'•ges further west of the Proposed Action site. O In addition, interviews with longtime opelu fishermen, bottomfishermen and trollers were conducted for the Cultural Impact Assessment, during which they described the activities and lob~iations of these fisheries. According to these interviews, the Proposed Action site, located in waters 220 fathoms deep, 2.6 nautical miles from shore, is not in any area specifically targeted fort fisheries. The proposed site is located about two miles from the area reported by fishers as the O trolling lanes for ono and mahimahi that is roughly parallel with the shoreline on the 30 fathom contour line. The proposed site is located about two miles from areas reported by opelu fishermen as the opelu ko'a's along the adjacent shoreline. The proposed site is located in water that is 300 feet deeper and about a mile further offshore from the deepest area fishermen report that is targeted for bottom fish, at about 150-170 fathoms depth. The proposed site is in waters O 12 O ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 2/2 612 0 0 8 400 feet deeper than the area designated by federal management agency NMFS as a Habitat of Particular Concern for bottom Fish, which is all seafloor between 21 fathoms to 153 fathoms. O Even though the proposed ocean lease site is not targeted for bottom fishing, there was concern expressed by some bottom fishermen that the Oceanspheres might change the movements of bottom-fish by acting as a fish aggregating device (Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). There was also concern that the Oceanspheres would attract sharks that would potentially harass fishermen O in the area by stealing fish that have been caught (Fukuyama, 2008, Akau, 2008). On the other hand, other fishermen thought that the Oceanspheres would benefit fishing by helping to aggregate fish from the region making them easier to catch (La`au 2008). As mentioned above, fishermen will be allowed to fish around the Oceanspheres, but not above or below them. For safety reasons, all boaters are asked to keep at least 100' from the buoys marking each O Oceansphere platform. Please describe any enclosures, fences, stakes, buoys, or monuments proposed to mark off the desired area. Platforms will be equally distributed within a 247 acre (1 square kilometer) area as shown in '~ O Figure 2. Each platform will be fitted with a radio antenna, GPS receiver, and navigation beacon attached to a flexible tube that will break the water surface. These beacons will be the only markings visible within the lease azea, and the public will be asked to remain 100 feet distant from any observable beacon. O Please discuss the extent to which the proposed activity may have a significant adverse effect upon any existing private industry or public activity, including the use of state marine waters for the purpose of navigation, fishing, and public recreation. Given that the proposed lease area is 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) off of Malae Point, in 1,320 feet O (402.34 meters) of water, and that the platforms will be submerged to a depth below 65 feet (20 meters), no significant adverse impacts on navigation, fishing or public recreation aze expected. The site is approximately 25 miles (21.3 nm) north of the Kona Blue Water Farms (KBWF) open ocean aquaculture operation, and on-site Hawaii Oceanic Technology operations should impart no conflict with KBWF operations. While the site is 10 miles (8.7 nautical miles) from the O nearest State FAD, the potential for the platforms to act as a FAD could impart some benefit to the commercial, recreational and charter fishing sectors. Because Hawaii Oceanic Technology intends to export almost all of its tuna to Japan and the U.S. mainland, the impact on supply, demand and prices should be minimal on the local commercial fishery. Cj As stated above, the recreation survey data, observational survey data, and interviews with longtime fishermen of the area indicated that recreation use along this portion of the coast is relatively small and located close to shore but nonetheless important to local residents. According to the interviews with local fishermen, the Proposed Action site, located in waters 220 fathoms deep, 2.6 nautical miles from shore, is not in any area specifically targeted for fisheries. O The proposed site is located about two miles from the area reported by fishers as the trolling lanes for ono and mahimahi that is roughly parallel with the shoreline on the 30 fathom contour line. The proposed site is located about two miles from areas reported by opelu fishermen as the O 13 CrI,UA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 opelu ko'a's along the adjacent shoreline. The proposed site is located in water that is 300 feet deeper and about a mile further offshore from the deepest area fishermen report that is targeted for bottom fish, at about 150-170 fathoms depth. The proposed site is in waters 400 feet deeper than the area designated by federal management agency NMFS as a Habitat of Particular Concern for bottom fish, which is all seafloor between 21 fathoms to 153 fathoms. As noted above, even though the proposed ocean lease site is not targeted for bottom fishing, there was concern expressed by some bottomfishermen that the Oceanspheres might change the C movements of bottomfish by acting as a fish aggregating device (Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). There was also concern that the Oceanspheres would attract sharks that would potentially harass fishermen in the area by stealing fish that have been caught (Fukuyama, 2008, Akau, 2008). On the other hand, other fishermen thought that the Oceanspheres would benefit fishing by helping to aggregate fish from the region making them easier to catch (La`au 2008). O Insummary, since there is no fishing targeted at this proposed project site, and the area is too deep for SCUBA diving, the impact to recreation is expected to be less than significant. As discussed above, there may be a small beneficial impact to recreation if the platforms act as fish atYi-action devices which may increase recreation fishing in the area. Fishermen will be allowed to fish around the Oceanspheres, but not above or below them. For safety reasons, all boaters are ~ asked to keep at least 100' from the buoys marking each Oceansphere platform. The proposed lease area was specifically chosen to be away from official shipping lanes that emanate from Kawaihae harbor south of the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed action does no;t present any conflict with commercial shipping activities. O PI lase discuss whether the proposed activity may have an adverse or permanent effect upon th wildlife, aquatic life, or environment of the surrounding area Due to the distance from the coral reef environment, excess nutrients and particulate matter O ge°nerated from the operation will be thoroughly diluted to background levels well before it could cause any adverse impact to the sensitive reef environment. Based on data from the two existing opierations (KBWF, Cates International, Ina [CII]), ammonia, phosphate, turbidity and other key water quality parameters are diluted to background levels within 30 meters downstream of the platforms. The depth of the water at the proposed lease site and the natural fluctuation of the strength and direction of the currents will distribute any particulate matter in all directions from ~ the lease site, reducing even the remote possibility of impacting the benthic environment 1,320 feet below the platforms. Physical processes that contribute to the mean and variable flow in the region include the wind stress and its space-time distribution, tidal motions, and eddies. The long-term average surface O currents in this general region are weak, ~10 cm/s towards the west, but the actual currents at any particular time are often relatively strong (50 cm/s or more) and variable in direction because the region is dominated by eddies (see EIS for more information). The proposed site has weak mean flows, and is subject to frequent strong transient motions associated with eddies. The proposed site is in a region that is exposed to strong positive wind stress curl, which drives upwelling and O the' development of cyclonic mesoscale eddies. These eddies retain their coherence for much shorter times than the anticyclonic eddies that form further to the south in the lee of Hawaii. 14 O ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12126/2008 Thus, they are more dispersive. Strong vertical shears are usually found in these eddies, causing strong vertical mixing. This vertical mixing combined with the horizontal dispersion associated O with the mesoscale and submesoscale eddies, suggests that the proposed site is in an ideal location to minimize accumulation of waste by-products. This conclusion is strengthened by documented research and a monitoring study conducted on the seafloor 200 feet below the Cates International, Inc. platforms off Oahu, which indicated ~ only a slight increase in interstitial worms directly under the platforms, with the majority of samples showing no significant difference between the type and abundance of benthic fauna at the control and platform sites. No adverse impact to the benthic environment below the Hawaii Oceanic Technology platforms is anticipated. O Since the coral reefs are over 2 '/z miles from the proposed action site, and the changes in water quality from nutrients and particulate matter from the proposed action are not anticipated to extend beyond the Zone of Mixing of the proposed ocean lease site, it is anticipated that there will be no impact on coral reefs from the proposed action. i0 10 10 O There will likely be a fouling growth of marine benthic fauna on the platforms and associated apparatus, that would probably include bivalves (several species of mussels and oysters [Pteria and Pinctada spp]), corals (Pocillopora and Porites), sea urchins (Echinothrix calamaris), nudibranchs (Stylocheilus longicauda), and sponges. These would all settle out of the natural plankton. Due to the biological and physical processes that will occur to this material in the water column and on the seabed, it is anticipated that the amount that would reach the barren seafloor would spread across a wide area and would be inconsequential to this habitat. Because the proposed action is to be located 2.6 nautical miles from shore in waters over 1,300 feet deep, it is anticipated that it will be too far from shore to affect reef fishes. Experience with comparable open ocean aquaculture operations and interviews with opelu fishermen will be used to determine the potential impact on nearshore fisheries such as opelu. It is anticipated that the opelu may be attracted to the Oceanspheres, but would probably not remain at the platforms for any duration. Therefore, the proposed action does not appear that it will have any impact on reef fish or opelu. It does appear that the Oceanspheres will probably attract carnivorous pelagic fish, such as kawakawa (Euthymnus alletteratus), yellowfin ahi (Thunmus alabacares), ono (Acanthocybium solandri), and mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus). These are targeted by the trolling fishery, which tends to follow the 30 - 35 fathom contour parallel to the shoreline. Across the state, FADs increase catch rates for those who use them. Hawaii Oceanic Technology intends to provide local fishermen access to fish around the Oceanspheres so they can benefit from any increase in these fish in the area. However, impacts to these fish are expected to be less than significant. The catch will likely increase in the project area, but it will be within the natural variance of catch rates. The proposed action site is about a mile away and in waters 300 feet deeper than the deepest O waters targeted by bottom fish fishermen, and in waters about 400 feet deeper than the area designated by federal authorities as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern for bottomfish. O 15 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 C Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the bottomfish fishery. Nonetheless, some bottomfish fishermen have noted that the platforms may act as a FAD, drawing the bottomfish into deeper waters (Fukuyama 2008), but this is unknown. Some fishermen noted that there may also be an increase in the number of sharks in the area because they would be attracted to the Oceanspheres, which has the potential of increasing interactions between fishermen and shazks, such as stealing fish caught by fishermen as they are being pulled into the boat (Fukuyama 2008, Akau 2008). It was also noted by bottomfish fishermen that, overall, the bottomfish fishery has declined considerably in recent years (Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). There are a few conceivable ways for this proposed action to negatively impact rare, threatened, endangered, or protected species, such as whales, dolphins, monk seals or turtles. The project does not present a significant obstruction to animal movements and there are no mooring lines or loose hanging nets to entangle the animals. There are no data available to support any conclusions on either short-term or long-term behavioral impacts to larger marine wildlife species. The proposed action site is outside the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, and not near any known spinner dolphin resting area. The natural behavior of some animals, such as dolphins, may be altered, either in the short term or over time, by the byproducts of the presence of the platforms themselves or by the maintenance activities associated with the platforms. As a means of preventing any negative impacts on these species, the proposed action proposes to include a monitoring and management plan concerning any interactions with marine mammals, sea turtles, and sharks, which will be developed in consultation with the regulatory agencies from the State and Federal government. Please discuss other potential uses of the area, including competing uses, which may be in the public interest. As stated above, the site is not targeted for any fishery, being further offshore and in deeper water than the location of the nearshore fisheries, including opelu and trolling for ono and mahi, as well as the bottomfish fishery. The proposed ocean lease site is basically indistinguishable from any other offshore waters of the Kohala coast. The only use of the proposed ocean lease site would be a vessel transiting from nearshore fishing areas to offshore fishing areas located to the south of this area. Since fishermen will be allowed to fish around the Oceansphere platforms (but not above or below them), we can foresee fishermen targeting this area after the platforms are deployed, hoping for improved catch rates of the same pelagic species found at the offshore FAD buoys. Please discuss whether the applicant has the capacity to carry out the entire project. Bill Spencer is the President and CEO of the company and Paul Troy, PhD is the Vice President and Chief Technology Director. Mr. Spencer is a seasoned entrepreneur. He has served as the President of the Hawaii Venture Capital Association since 1999 and has extensive fund raising experience. The company has already received funding from Kolohala Holdings, a Honolulu based venture capital fund and Hawaii Angels, an angel investor network with chapters on Oahu, Maui and the Island of Hawaii. The company plans to raise additional venture capital 16 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 212 6/2 0 0 8 once permits have been granted. Kolohala Holdings is expected to be the lead investor. This funding will provide sufficient resources for all aspects of the project. O Dr. Paul Troy will serve as Chief Technology Director. He holds a PhD in Oceanography from University of Hawaii at Manoa and is an expert in ocean engineering, technical management, thermodynamics, spectroscopy, chemistry, and advanced naval technology. While faculty at University of Hawaii, Manoa, he designed, deployed and recovered 4.5 Km drifting vertical O arrays in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and while serving as Senior Scientist for a Honolulu defense contracting firm he has overseen the development of advanced marine surveillance technology which is in use by oceanographers and the Navy today. Dr. Troy has over 20 years of proven achievement in marine research and scientific engineering. Dr. Kevin Hopkins, Director of PACRC, will serve as the sub-contracted aquaculturist. He has O over 30 years of experience covering all aspects of aquaculture and will provide all of the fingerlings for the venture. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will sub-contract with local ocean engineering teams to perform work on components of the overall system. The company has assembled a prestigious board of advisors that include Dr. Phillip McGillivary, O Science Liaison, US Coast Guard (Fish Biologist, Aquaculture), and Dr. Jo-Ann C. Leong, Director HIMB at UH Coconut Island, Dr. Roger Lukas, Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research and John C. Wiltshire, Ph.D., Assoc. Director, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii. To sell the product, Hawaii Oceanic Technology will work with major wholesaler/distributors O from the local, U.S. mainland and Japanese markets. Please discuss whether the proposed project is clearly in the public interest upon consideration of the overall economic, social, and environmental impacts. The philosophy of this venture is rooted in the global need for fish protein that cannot be ~ supplied by wild stocks which are being over-fished to near extinction. The objective is to create environmental, social, and economic benefits from all aspects of the project. Hawaii Oceanic Technology's primary concern is to raise tuna in an environmentally sound manner, and is working to develop all aspects of a system that includes raising fish from egg to harvest and using fish scraps as a Big Island livestock feed supplement or biofuel feedstock. The goal for the O operation is to minimize its contribution to the waste stream of the region. The company also recognizes that the United States has a huge $8 billion trade imbalance through its importation of fish protein, much of which is produced by aquaculture in Asia. Given the introduction of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007, there is tremendous potential O benefit to Hawaii. Hawaii has a $20 million dollar aquaculture industry which can grow significantly if the ability to exploit open ocean aquaculture can be effectively demonstrated. The State has more than 200,000 square miles of ocean in the Exclusive Economic Zone. Only Alaska has more ocean territory than Hawaii. Hawaii can be one of the Nation's most prolific sources of fish protein, addressing the trade imbalance and meeting significant national and O international demand. 17 O CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/28/2008 Hawaii Oceanic Technology will use aclosed-cycle aquaculture cultivation method that will not deplete local wild ahi fishery populations. Fingerlings will be grown from eggs obtained from locally-caught wild stock that are spawned in a local land-based aquaculture facility. Using locally caught fish for the brood stock will ensure that the genetic makeup of the cultured fish will not diverge from the wild tuna found in Hawaiian waters. Approximately seven broodstock ahi will be caught each year at subadult size of azound l Okg, and grown to maturity of older than two years, and reproductive size for broodstock. Open ocean aquaculture also benefits wild stocks by providing a supply of healthy fish for a world with ever increasing demand, without targeting the fully fished or over fished wild stocks. While Hawaii Oceanic Technology will initially use commercially-available fish pellets, we hope to encourage the development of a food source that is in part derived from locally-produced components. In addition, farmed tuna requires only two pounds of feed for every pound of fish produced while wild fish require five to ten times as much. Local production of high quality farmed ahi will help provide a greater level of food security for Hawaii, in recognition of the heightened potential for interruptions in imported food to the islands, which currently accounts for a majority of the food consumed by Hawaii's citizens. While Hawaii Oceanic Technology does intend to compete to a limited extent with local ahi fishermen in the local market, Hawaii Oceanic Technology will provide only enough Ahi in the Islands to generate name recognition for this environmentally-friendly, pure, clean product. Most of the fish will be sent to markets in Japan and the U.S. mainland where the demand far exceeds the supply. The impact on the local ahi fishery will be minimal. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will provide at least 22 full time equivalent jobs, with an average salary of $51,500 by year five of operations. The Hawaii State Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism's input-output job multiplier indicates that an additional 46 jobs will be created as a result of the company's activities. Additionally Hawaii Oceanic Technology activities will provide the marine community with contracts for salvage, transportation, platform maintenance and boat leasing. In addition, Hawaii Oceanic Technology is using proprietary technology that may prove to have a wide variety of uses beyond open ocean aquaculture, which is in keeping with the high technology initiatives encouraged by the State. As is discussed above, the proposed lease area is in an unremarkable location 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) off the North Kohala coast. Operations at the site will not impact the tourist industry, does not impose a hazard to navigation, and for commercial, recreational and charter fishermen, is not different from hundreds of square miles of ocean off the Kohala and Kona coast. It will not affect the view plane from the adjacent coastal land azea as the platforms will be submerged except for maintenance, feeding and harvesting that will take place about 4 hours per day. The land use of the adjacent coastal lands is primarily ranching, as it has been for over one hundred years. There are no residential areas nearby. While the proposed action will create jobs and bolster local economic activity in the region of influence, the increase in employment, income and business sales volume from the proposed action is expected to be minor. This would result in less than significant impacts on housing and schools. Many of the jobs created by the proposed action will require skills found readily in the local labor pool of people who regularly fish, and operate commercial vessels. The company is 18 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 212 6/2 0 0 8 also currently supporting the specialized education of students at the University of Hawaii at Hilo in order to build the local capacity for the more specialized jobs created by the proposed O action. The availability of jobs to the local labor force and the investment by the company in educating local students for the specialized technical jobs created by the company are evidence that the proposed action will contribute to environmental justice in the local community. Since the location of the proposed ahi aquaculture operation is not accessible to children, the safety of children will not be compromised. It is anticipated that the proposed action will cause less than O significant social and economic impacts in the region of influence. In summary, Hawaii Oceanic Technology expects no adverse social impacts from the project. However, beneficial economic impacts will result from job creation, technology development, and the production of a high-value export product, and has structured the venture to be O environmentally sound, sustainable and in harmony with the natural environment and allied businesses in the State. The proposed action is consistent with the Hawaii State Plan related to economic development, agriculture, conservation lands, potential economic growth activities, and the physical environment of land-based, shoreline, and marine resources. The design of the proposed O aquaculture operation without anchors and mooring lines, located three miles from shore in waters about 1,320 feet deep will help increase the economic activity in the aquaculture industry, provide local jobs in the marine-related and aquaculture-related fields, and avoid detrimental impacts on marine mammals, sea turtles, and other marine creatures, as well as avoid conflicts of use with fisheries, ocean recreation or other activities in the area. O CONSERVATION DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS Please demonstrate that the proposed use is consistent with the following criteria. Refer to O HAR, Chapter 13-5, Section 13-5-30 for criteria. Is the proposed land use consistent with the purpose of the Conservation District? The State has developed an ocean leasing mechanism to provide for economic opportunity within State marine waters. These waters fall under the Conservation District designation. As the O ocean leasing law was specifically structured to provide for the development of an offshore aquacuhure industry, and the Board of Land and Natural Resources has issued two marine leases to companies raising moi and kampachi over the past few years, so far as this venture operates in an environmentally sound manner and causes minimal impact on other ocean uses, this proposed land use is consistent with the purpose of the Conservation District. O Is the proposed use consistent with the objectives of the subzone of the land in which the use will occur? State marine waters are typically designated "Resource subzone" under the Conservation District rules (HAR, Chapter 13-5), with the objective to develop "areas to ensure sustained use of the O natural resources of those areas." This Proposed Action is consistent with the "Resource subzone" as it is an identified land use in this subzone of the Conservation District, pursuant to O 19 For Use of State Marine Waters 1 2/2 612 0 0 8 ~tion 13-5-13 and Section 13-5-24 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR). The objective the Resource Subzone is "to develop, with proper management, areas to ensure sustained use the natural resources of those areas." (HAR 13-5-13). Identified land uses in the resource ozone include "aquaculture under an approved management plan" (HAR 13-5-24, R-1, D-1). The primary resource required for this operation is clean offshore waters with which to raise hatchery-propagated tuna. Water quality will be carefully monitored under the strict controls of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The impact of the open C ocean aquaculture operation on water quality will be measured against strict standards for oceanic water. The proposed operation will have only a limited and localized impact on water quality, and will not have a significant impact on water quality in the sensitive and multi-use reef environment. In addition, the operation could have a beneficial impact on fishing activity, given both the potential for the platforms to act as FADS. C Since the project will have little impact on the natural resources and will operate under an approved management plan, the Hawaii Oceanic Technology project is consistent with the objectives of the Resource Subzone. Does the proposed land use comply with provisions and guidelines contained in Chapter 205A, C Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), entitled "Coastal Zone Management," where applicable? Chapter 205A covers a wide variety of policy areas including Coastal Zone Management, Special Management Areas, Shoreline Setbacks, Marine and Coastal Affairs and other provisions. The definition of "coastal zone management area" includes the proposed ocean C lease area for the proposed action since the "coastal zone management area means all lands of the State and the area extending seaward from the shoreline to the limit of the State's police power and management authority, including the United States territorial sea" (HRS 205A-1). Specific objectives in Chapter 205A that are applicable to this proposed action, and with which C the proposed action is in compliance include: • Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources. (HRS 205A-2(b)(3)(A)) • Protect valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. (HRS 205A-2(b)(4)(A)) C • Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's economy in suitable locations. (HRS 205A-2(b)(5)(A)) • Promote the protection, use, and development of marine and coastal resources to assure their sustainability. (HRS 205A-2(b)(10)(A)) Specific policies in Chapter 205A that are applicable to this proposed action and with which the ~ proposed action is in compliance include: • Provide adequate, accessible, and diverse recreational opportunities in the coastal zone management area by adopting water quality standards and regulating point and nonpoint sources of pollution to protect, and where feasible, restore the recreational value of coastal waters. (HRS 205A-(c)(1)(B)(vi)) O 20 ~ ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 7212612008 Ensure that new developments are compatible with their visual environment by designing and locating such developments to minimize the alteration of natural landforms and O existing public views to and along the shoreline. (HRS 205A-(c)(3)(B)) • Exercise an overall conservation ethic, and practice stewardship in the protection, use, and development of marine and coastal resources. (HRS 205A-(c)(4)(A)) • Ensure that coastal dependent development, such as harbors and ports, and coastal related development such as visitor industry facilities and energy generating facilities, are O located, designed, and constructed to minimize adverse social, visual, and environmental impacts in the coastal zone management area. (HRS 205A-(c)(5)(B)) • Ensure that the use and development of marine and coastal resources are ecologically and environmentally sound and economically beneficial (HRS 205A-(c)(10)(D)) • Encourage research and development of new, innovative technologies for exploring p using, or protecting marine and coastal resources. (HRS 205A-(c)(10)(E)) The proposed action is not located in the Special Management Area, which is defined in Chapter 205A as "the land extending inland from the shoreline as delineated on the maps filed with the authority as of June 8, 1977, or as amended pursuant to section 205A-23." According to the O Hawaii County Planning Commission Rule 9-4(22), the Special Management Area (SMA) is defined as "the land extending inland from the shoreline as delineated on maps filed with the Authority as of June 8, 1977, or as amended pursuant to Rule 9-19." In this case, Authority is defined as Planning Commission. Based on this definition, the open ocean operations for the proposed project are located outside of the SMA and all land based operations will take place in O existing facilities and will not introduce any new uses at these facilities. In the locations where operations occur within the SMA, the proposed land use does comply with Chapter 205A. The proposed action, including the ocean lease site and commercial harbor base site, does not take place in the Shoreline Area, which is defined in Chapter 205A as "all the land area between the shoreline and the shoreline setback line and may include the area between mean sea level and O the shoreline; provided that if the highest annual wash of the waves is fixed or significantly affected by a structure that has not received all permits and approvals required by law or if any part of any structure in violation of this part extends seaward of the shoreline, then the term "shoreline area" shall include the entire structure." (HRS 205A-41). The provisions of Chapter 205A related to Shoreline Setbacks are not applicable to this proposed action. O Chapter 205A designates the lead agency responsible for implementation of the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan. The proposed action is consistent with policies articulated in the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan. Applicable perspectives, goals and strategic actions of the Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan with which the proposed action is consistent O include: PERSPECTIVE 2: Preserving our Ocean Heritage.: A vibrant and healthy ocean environment is the foundation of quality of life in Hawaii and the well-being of its people, now and for generations to come. O GOAL: Encourage cutting edge and appropriate ocean science and technology with safeguards for ocean resource protection. O 21 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 7 212 6120 0 8 C STRATEGIC ACTION: Plan and develop sustainable commercial aquaculture in coastal areas and ocean waters to diversify and expand Hawaii's economy and provide locally produced sources of seafood (HORMP 2006, p. 38). The proposed action is also consistent with the HORMP directive that "...all aquaculture development must consider the protection and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystems, and develop guidelines and appropriate safeguards for siting and conducting sustainable operations to be included in the permitting process as well as managing the overall growth of the industry, to ensure that the cumulative impacts of these enterprises on our marine resources are minimized." (HORMP, 2006, p. 32) Chapter 205A-71 specifies that artificial light from floodlights, uplights, or spotlights used for decorative or aesthetic purposes is prohibited when the light directly illuminates the shoreline and ocean waters (HRS 205A-71(1). The navigational light located on the marker buoy for each Oceansphere is required by the U.S. Coast Guard to prevent any hazards to navigation. Therefore these lights are in compliance with this part of Chapter 205A. Describe how the proposed land use will not cause substantial adverse impact to existing natural resources within the surrounding area, community or region. Given the distance from land [3 miles (2.6 nautical miles)], depth of the water [1,320 feet (402.34 meters)], and based on a water quality analysis of the proposed site and documented impacts from the two ongoing operations (Cates International, Inc. and Kona Blue Water Farms), no adverse impacts are anticipated to water quality, benthic habitat or the coral reef environment. Additional information is provided in the previous questions regarding the effect upon the wildlife, aquatic life, or environment of the surrounding area. Describe how the proposed land use, including buildings, structures and facilities, will be compatible with the locality and surrounding areas, and to the physical conditions and capabilities of the specific parcel or parcels. There will be no buildings or facilities constructed within the Conservation Distict azea. The land based operations of the Hawaii Oceanic Technology aquaculture project will be operating from Kawaihae Hazbor, which is not designated Conservation District. Maintenance and operations facility and storage area will be located in Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. Feed storage and feed transport will take place from Kawaihae Harbor. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will use existing facilities, which may include the offshore moorings, the container loading area, and container lot and loading pier. All other land based support for ocean operations will also be at Kawaihae Harbor. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will lease a commercial lot in the harbor that will include an office, a large fenced area for storage of tools and equipment, personal SCUBA gear and an air compressor for SCUBA tanks, three large pick-up trucks and three work boats approximately 35 feet in length each equipped with two 150 hp outboard engines. These needs are typical for many commercial operations sited at the harbor and will be compatible with the locality. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will put a small communications station within the office and a small whip antenna will be installed on the building to communicate with the dynamic positioning systems (DPS) of the platforms. 22 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 The proposed ocean platform site is within Conservation District lands and will be off of the North Kohala coast located 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) southwest of Malae Point. Hawaii O Oceanic Technology will deploy 12 subsurface platforms over a five year period. Platform design and operation limit the aesthetic visual impact to small radio antennae from each platform breaking the water surface. The depth of the platforms [65 feet (20 meters) below sea level] removes any hazard to navigation for any personal or commercial vessels operating in the area. O Harvesting will be done at sea and the fish will be brought by boat to Kawaihae Harbor for trucking to a Kona-based commercial fish processing and distribution vendor, or to Hilo Harbor for trucking to a Hilo-based commercial fish processing and distribution vendor. After processing, the Fish will be sent by air freight to mainland and Japanese markets. A limited quantity will be sent to locations in Hawaii. Fingerlings will be produced at PACRC in Hilo O and transported through Hilo Harbor by boat to the proposed ocean lease site for transfer to the Oceanspheres. Hawaii Oceanic Technology vessels will operate in the same manner as the local fishing fleet does, and will not require any special or additional equipment or structures at the harbors. Describe how the existing physical and environmental aspects of the land, such as natural O beauty and open space characteristics, will be preserved or improved upon. As described in the above response, the Oceansphere platforms will remain subsurface for most of their operation. Platforms will be brought to the surface one at a time for about four hours for certain types of maintenance, stocking feed, and during harvesting operations. In addition, as the p site is 3 miles offshore, the visual impact when the platforms are at the surface will be minimal. All land operations will be taking place at existing facilities and will have no impact on existing local land use. If applicable, describe how subdivision of land will not be utilized to increase the intensity of land it O uses in the Conservation District. Not applicable. Describe how the proposed land use will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. O The primary concern for public health is water quality. The strict standards for Hawai`i's marine waters that are enforced by the Hawaii Department of Health Clean Water Branch (CWB) will ensure the public's safety. Hawaii Oceanic Technology is required to apply for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in conjunction with the operation of O the proposed facility that will require monthly water quality monitoring to ensure the health of the waters and safety of the residents and visitors to Hawaii. All raised fish are subject to testing under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulations, intended to provide a systematic preventative approach to seafood safety. In addition, the State of Hawaii monitors aquaculture facilities to ensure they are O operating safely, and humanely. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION O 23 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 212 612 0 0 8 Articles IX and XII of the State Constitution, other state laws, and the courts of the State require government agencies to promote and preserve cultural beliefs, practices, and resources of Native Hawaiians and other ethnic groups. The DOH, Chapter 343 requires an EA/EIS to discuss cultural resources in determining the significance of a proposed project. Please provide the identity and scope of "valued cultural, historical and natural resources" in which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the area. All land-based operations will occur within the commercial harbors and activities will be similar to those currently ongoing. There are no historic structures or documented archaeological resources in the vicinity of the proposed land-based activities. There are no historic structures or documented archaeological resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places in or around the proposed ocean lease site. Interviews with longtime fishermen noted, and bathymetric charts confirm, that there is no underwater feature in the area of the ocean lease site that would serve to attract fish. There are no traditional cultural properties at or near the site of the proposed action. Fishing is the cultural activity that takes place the closest to the proposed ocean lease site, albeit over a mile away for bottomfish fishing and over two miles away for fishing for opelu and ono and mahi. Kupuna, local cultural descendants, and longtime local fishermen consider the primary marine cultural resource in the area to be the `iipelu ko`a (`holes' or schooling places for mackerel scad - Decuprerus macarellus), cited during interviews. According to the interviews with local fishermen, the Proposed Action site, located in waters 220 fathoms deep, 2.6 nautical miles from shore, is not in any area specifically targeted for fisheries. The proposed site is located about two miles from the area reported by fishers as the trolling lanes for ono and mahimahi that is roughly parallel with the shoreline on the 30 fathom contour line. The proposed site is located about two miles from areas reported by opelu fishermen as the opelu ko`a's along the adjacent shoreline. The opelu ko`a are located along the coast within %Z mile of shore at locations close to Waiakailio Bay, Pu`u Ulaula (Red Hill), Malae Point (Black Point), Waiwaionu Bay, and Keaweula Bay (La`au 2008, Cambra 2008). The proposed site is located in water that is 300 feet deeper and about a mile further offshore from the deepest area fishermen report that is targeted for bottom fish, between 150 and 170 fathoms depth (Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). The proposed site is in waters 400 feet deeper than the area designated by federal management agency NMFS as a Habitat of Particular Concern for bottom fish, which is all seafloor between 21 fathoms to 153 fathoms. Even though the proposed ocean lease site is not targeted for bottom fishing, there was concern expressed by some bottomfishermen that the Oceanspheres might change the movements of bottomfish by acting as a fish aggregating device (Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). There was also concern that the Oceanspheres would attract sharks that would potentially harass fishermen in the area by stealing fish that have been caught (Fukuyama, 2008, Akau, 2008). Other fishermen through that the Oceanspheres would benefit fishing by helping to aggregate fish from the region making them easier to catch (La`au 2008). In summary, the site is far enough offshore that it is not used for trolling, net fishing, opelu fishing, bottom fishing or other cultural practice. The ocean lease site may be used for transit by 24 O CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12126/2008 fishermen going from nearshore fishing areas to offshore locations. Interviewees noted the waters further offshore from Malae Point start to be affected by the Alenuihaha Channel with its O strong winds and currents. They describe that offshore fishing was not favored in that area, and that fishermen tended to go offshore in the areas further south, off Kawaihae and North Kona areas. Konohiki rights are recognized even today as a cultural value when considering marine O resources. Historical data and legal analysis indicate that "The konohiki, or overseers of ahupua`a (land divisions providing complete land and sea provisions for living in them) was given the right to regulate fishing in the waters adjoining his ahupua`a `from the beach at low watermark to the edge of the reefs and, where there was no reef, to one mile seaward of the beach" (Murakami in MacKenzie (Ed) 1991: 175). Since the proposed ocean lease site is beyond O the limit of konohiki responsibility and rights, the proposed action does not affect these rights. In addition, there were no registered fisheries declared for the coastal waters of this area according to records of the Territory of Hawaii, under the program established in the Hawaii Organic Act (Kosaki, 1954: 9). Nonetheless, the project team consulted with kupuna from the area and with their help identified the person recognized as the konohiki for the area, and interviewed him about the proposed project. This is discussed below. O Historic remains on the adjacent shoreline area include many canoe hale, which indicate the large number of canoes used by those living in the general area. In prehistoric and historic times, canoes traveling from Maui and Oahu to the island of Hawaii and its leeward settlements may have passed through this general area. Larger population centers were located further to the north O at the large fishing village at Lapakahi, and further to the south at Kawaihae. Travel along the coastal waters were probably following a course set close the shoreline to avoid the wind that is predominant in offshore waters While these ocean waters themselves are not specifically targeted for fishing purposes or other O cultural practices, these ocean waters exist in the cultural context of the coastal lands adjacent to them. The coastal area due east of the ocean lease site is known as Pu `u I7laula, or Red Hill. It is bounded on the north by Malae Point, (commonly known as Black Point) to Pahinahina ahupua`a in the south. From north to south, these nine ahupua`a include Ki`iokalani, Kaihooa, Pohakulu, Ahulula, Kokio, Kalala 1 ~`, Kalala 2"d, Makiloa, and Pahinahina. O There is historical evidence of small fishing settlements along the shoreline of this region consisting of house sites, canoe hale, small gardens, walls, all connected by a coastal trail. (Bonk 1968, Newman 1968, Clark 1986). Fresh water was apparently very limited. These fishing villages likely focused daily life on the ocean and used the ocean near here for Fishing purposes. Newman (1968) describes fishing activities in general for Hawaii in this precontact O time with the primary focus of fishing using the ocean area within % mile from shore for different types offish, along with trolling further offshore. This is a coastal area with historic remains indicating that it was inhabited with small gatherings of houses, yards, and canoe houses in various embayments along the coast. More people were O living mauka than on the makai lands (Ellis, 1963, Clark 1986). Clark (1986) describes this as a dual settlement pattern with more settlement mauka in the "kula" area, and sparse coastal settlements. In Bill Bonk's 1968 report, his archeological survey of the coastline from an area ~ 25 I CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 212 612 0 0 8 north of Kawaihae to Mahukona describes the area of Pu`u Ulaula with an emphasis on two major bays in the azea with evidence of more houses -one at Waiakailio Bay (at the southern erid of the Pu`u Ulaula region of coast), and another bay to the north, which was probably Waiwaionu Bay at Puaiki and Puanui ahupua`a. Bonk also mentions numerous canoe sheds associated with house sites (Bonk 1968). Bonk does not mention anything at Malae Point itself. But, going further north, Bonk discovered a small bay with remains of several houses, burials, canoe houses. This was probably Waiwaionu Bay at the Puaiki and Puanui ahupua`a. At a small bay north of Malae Point is an excellent landing place for canoes. Numerous stone walled structures and a few scattered rock graves are found in and around the bay. Pieces of coral are scattered on these graves. There are numerous small inlets along this coast, many with small coral pebble beaches. This coastal region contains some very excellent fishing grounds. Uhu (Parrot fish) are especially numerous along this coast. Fishing certainly must have been one of the important reasons for settlement along this coast in prehistoric times. Little change has been noted in this regard, for during our three week period in the field, not one day passed without seeing at least one fishing boat offshore. Shore fishermen were also in abundance and the remains of their sojourns litter the coast with the cultural debris of our modern age. Another reason for attracting temporary or permanent residents to this area was the protection afforded by the Kohala mountains to the coastal region of the southern part of north Kohala. I was told on more than one occasion that the area between Waiakailio Bay and the point south of Keaweula Bay is normally well protected even during those periods when coastal areas to the north and south have heavy winds, resulting in choppy seas. The southern section of north Kohala coast however, normally is protected by the trade winds. The sea is therefore relatively calm during a good portion of the year and as a result this is an area where small boats might normally heave to if threatened by high seas. (pp. 36-3 7) The following excerpt is from Clark's 1986 treatise, "Waimea -Kawaihae: A Leeward Hawaii Settlement System" Soehren's Bonk's, and Tomonari-Tuggle's surveys, which focused on CZl, indicate that beyond the ahupua `a of Kawaihae 1 the northern coast is dotted with a variety of structures, some isolated, others in small clusters, and still others in larger settlements. At this point, I cannot correlate the "villages" mentioned historically with speciftc archaeological settlements. None of the settlements compare with Kawaihae in size or importance. North of the district border the first settlement encountered is a small one situated C at the mouth of Kapae Gulch (site 4157) (Bonk 1968). This is a small settlement 26 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 7212612008 where only one ward can be identified. Along with two small shelter caves at the side of the gulch, there appear to be ftve or six PDUs. Three of these have walls O around the house and `yard" but no non-indigenous artifacts suggesting occupation into, if not exclusively during, the historic period. The first sizable settlement north of the district border is at Waiaka'ilio Bay (site 4156). Perhaps as many as 25 to 30 DUs, most of which may have been ~ permanent, were reported along with numerous shelters and recent encampments. Some of the DUs were historic but most seem likely to have been prehistoric. Also present were two canoe sheds, a possible heiau, and some scattered burial monuments. Bonk (1968: 21) concluded the "Waiaka~ilio Bay undoubtedly was an important settlement in the prehistoric as well as historic period. " ~ At the ahupua `a of Kalala there is a scattering of residential sites along the coast but no large clusters of houses. A small settlement may have been situated in the vicinity of Pu `u Ulaula but most of the DUs there seem most likely to have been historic, at least during their last phase of occupation (Bonk 1968:35). ~ The land units of Pohakuloa, Kaiho~oa, and Ki'iokalani again lack sizable coastal settlements. A small settlement of several DUs appears to have been present at a small bay just north of Malae Point. Most of the structures along this portion of the leeward coast were probably RUSs and perhaps EDUs which were occupied in order to exploit the good fishing grounds (Bonk 1968: 36-37). O For Puanui and Kehena land units there are again scattered shelters and DUs. A settlement of note was located at Keawanui Bay. It consisted of at least two major canoe sheds, at least four PDUs, numerous EDUs, and seven large salt p pans (Bonk 1968: 38-40; Soehren 1969:23). Many more DUs would probably be revealed through intensive survey at this locale. Bonk (1968.•38) described it as "a fairly significant settlement in prehistoric times. O Along the shoreline are portions of old fishing trails, and a section of the modern-day Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail, that connects ancient and modern trails along the shoreline and mauka-makai. The Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail recognizes the significance of the coastal trail and its corridor as a cultural resource that shaped the Hawaiian culture. While the Pu`u Ulaula area of North Kohala is included in the designated Trail system, it is outside the O priority area for implementing the 15 year planning period for all alternatives in their recent Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (AKNHT- NPS 2007, p. 5) All the land in the Pu`u Ulaula region, including the ahupua`a of Kaihooa (at Malae Point), Pohakulu, Ahulula, Kokio, Kalala 15`, Kalala 2"d, Makiloa, and Pahinahina were retained by ~ Kamehameha I. These eight ahupua`a are known today as the "Pahinahina lease," and were transferred by King Kamehameha III in "An Act Relating to the Crown, Government, and Fort O 27 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 212 6/2 0 0 8 Lands, in 1848" to become the lands of the Hawaiian Government. After the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, the lands became part of the Territory of Hawaii. And, after statehood, the lands became part of the state of Hawaii. Since the mid 1800s, these lands have been leased for ranching purposes, transferring to Kahua Ranch in 1928, and then to Ponoholo Ranch in 1989. Today, the lands of Kahua and Ponoholo Ranch include fee simple and leased land from the State of Hawaii. Among these leased lands is the Pahinahina lease in the Pu`u Ulaula region, which represents over 4,000 acres of state land including the ahupua`a of Kaihooa (at Malae Point), Pohakulu, Ahulula, Kokio, Kalala 15~, Kalala 2°`~, Makiloa, and Pahinahina. Kahua Ranch brought water from the mauka area to the Pahinahina lease for their cattle (Richards, 2008). Kahua Ranch also owned the entire ahupua`a just north of the Pahinahina lease, called Ki`iokalani all the way to the ocean at Malae Point. (Richards 2008), and in 1989, it was transferred to Ponoholo Ranch. All of these lands were used for ranching continuously since the ranch was established. Kahua Ranch is led by Monty Richards, the nephew of ranch co-founder Atherton Richards. In 1989, part of Kahua Ranch split off to form Ponoholo Ranch, which is currently run by Pono Von Holt, the son of Ronald Von Holt. In this process, the makai parcel of Ki`iokalani was transferred to Ponoholo Ranch. Interviewees report that the shoreline area of Ki`iokalani, Puaiki, and the Pu`u Ulaula area has been used by the paniolo families from Kahua Ranch since the Ranch started in 1928 (Ho`opai, 2008, Richards 2008, Von Holt 2008). Because of this historical association that Monty Richards and Pono Von Holt have with the Pahinahina lease, and Ki`iokalani, the local kupuna William Akau recognized that Monty Richards and Pono Von Holt were the konohiki of the area of ocean where the proposed lease site is located. Akau emphasized that Kahua Ranch and Ponoholo Ranch own or lease all the ahupua`a in that area and have ranched the land there for generations. He said that the Ho`opai family should be consulted since they have been the Hawaiian paniolo family using the area for generations (Akau 2008). Identify the extent to which those resources, including traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights, will be affected or impaired by the proposed action. As described above, we do not anticipate any infringement on Native Hawaiian rights from this proposed action. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources have been identified in the proposed ocean lease site as eligible or listed as a nomination to the NRHP. Document research and oral history interviews have not provided any oral tradition, legend, or cultural activity associated with the preferred Kohala ocean lease site in particular. The site is far offshore and interviewees have noted that it is not used specifically for trolling, net fishing, bottom fishing, or other cultural practice. The area may be used by fishermen trolling from the nearshore ono lane to offshore fishing grounds. There are no historical documents of any official registered konohiki fishing rights in the area. Interviews with kupuna fishermen noted, and bathymetric charts confirm, that there is no underwater feature in the area of the ocean lease site that would serve to attract fish. 28 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 Interviewees with master fishermen in the area noted that there were no `opelu ko`a at the O proposed ocean lease site, but there were ko`a about two miles from the site, located within '/z mile from the shoreline along the Pu`u Ulaula area (La`au 2008, Cambra 2008). This distance, as well as the depth of the waters in the area of the proposed ocean lease site would result in less potential to affect the behavior of nearshore fisheries, like `opelu (La`au 2008, Cambra 2008). Evidence from the 'Ewa Beach fish platform is that `opelu may be attracted to the platform for O some periods, but that the schools still do move up and down the coast (Cates 2003). While it is unknown whether there is any change in the overall abundance of `opelu, or rather only in distribution, the platform will probably not exclude `opelu from the `opelu ko`a ,located over two miles away from the platforms. ', O Interviewees noted different opinions about the positive or negative nature of the impact from the proposed aquaculture farm if it attracts fish around the farm's cages. Some were positive about the potential affect its aggregating qualities and the potential for benefits to the local fishermen. But, others were uncertain and feared negative impacts on bottomfish by attracting them to deeper waters (Fukuyama 2008). The attached Draft EIS includes the analysis and conclusions that there are no adverse impacts anticipated for bottomfish, based on the experience of the two O other open ocean aquaculture operations, and a water quality model showing that ambient conditions of nutrients are anticipated outside the Zone of Mixing which is the ocean lease area to a depth of 150m. The bottom is over 800 feet deeper than this bottom limit of the Zone of Mixing. O There was also concern that the proposed aquaculture farm might attract more sharks to the area with the increase in the number of fish around the cages (Akau 2008, Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008). Bottom fishermen expressed concern about this increase in sharks and its affect on the industry. A specific concern was that more sharks will steal the catch off the line when bottom fishing (Fukuyama 2008). To some native Hawaiians, the shark is a sacred animal, and is O considered a member of their ohana. When developing the shark management plan for the aquaculture farm, it would be important make sure that measures to keep the sharks away from working divers must be culturally appropriate. To determine how the proposed activity might affect the traditional cultural values and practices associated with the adjacent land area, twelve ahupua`a in the area were researched in the area O locally known as Pu`u Ulaula (Pahinahina to Kaihooa) and Black Point (Mahe Point) (Ki`iokalani, Puaiki and Puanui), including identifying and contacting all the known and identified cultural practitioners and kupuna, local landowners or long-term lessees, the recognized konohiki of the area, and the native Hawaiian families culturally attached to the land. O For the interviewees who camped and shorefished for generations along the shoreline adjacent to the proposed site, they were asked to assess the impact of the proposed action, alternatives, and mitigation measures on the cultural resources, practices and beliefs. Each of them said it wouldn't affect them at all. They each emphasized that the site was far offshore, in deep water that is not used for any cultural activity, such as fishing and was not in the path of any cultural p activity such as voyaging. They also noted that the distance from shore resulted in the proposed project having no impact on the viewshed from the coastal trails and camps. They said there are already boats that regularly traverse the ocean closer to shore, so a few more boats won't make a O 29 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 2/2 612 0 0 8 difference. In other words, the interviewees with cultural associations with the adjacent land all agreed that the addition of the proposed project's work boats and the tops of cages, will have no impact on the cultural resources, practices and beliefs (Richards 2008, Von Holt 2008, Ho`opai 2008, Hanohano 2008). A primary cultural value that was stated by the Ho`opai `ohana and shared by other interviewees is: "You have to take care of nature and it'll take care of you. You need to give back. The more you give back, the more it'll take care of you." (Ho`opai 2008). Bernard Ho`opai encouraged the aquaculture farm to give back to the environment and community. What feasible action, if any, could be taken by the BLNR in regards to your application to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights? Hawaii Oceanic Technology has asked local Hawaiian leaders, kupuna and cultural descendants if they believed that the proposed action would infringe on their native Hawaiian rights. They have responded that they believe there would be no adverse impacts to their rights, cultural practices, and cultural resources. Hawaii Oceanic Technology does not believe that BLNR needs to do anything in regards to this application to reasonably protect native Hawiian rights. However, the company is very committed to protecting native Hawaiian rights and cultural resources and is enthusiastic to work with the DAR and other ocean users to provide the appropriate data and proper safeguards to protect the rights of Native Hawaiians. Does the proposed land use have an effect (positive/negative) on public access to and along the shoreline or along any public trail? The ocean based operations will have no impact on public access to and along the shoreline or along any public trail. Land-based operations will occur exclusively at the Kawaihae boat harbor and will include daily boat launches, bi-weekly onloading of feed canisters to a boat, with infrequent offloading offish at the Kawaihae Commercial Harbor or Hilo Harbor for transshipment to commercial fish packing facilities in Kona or Hilo. Public access to and along the shoreline will not be hindered by these activities. The daily boat launches at Kawaihae Harbor will not present a noticeable burden onto the boat ramps, as the facility is designed to accommodate this activity. Does the proposed use have an effect (positive/negative) on beach processes? There would be no development on the land that might affect the beach process. Will the proposed use cause increased runoff or sedimentation? There will be no construction as part of this project and all land-based facilities would be at existing facilities leased for this purpose. The proposed uses will not result in any increase in runoff. Will the proposed use cause any visual impact on any individual or community? 30 C ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 2/2 612 0 0 8 To help determine the potential impact of the proposed action on visual resources, interviews O with the land owners and users of the adjacent shoreline area were conducted. The Pu`u Ulaula region is the area due east of the proposed ocean lease site. This area consists of over 4000 acres of state land that has been leased for pasture purposes to Kahua Ranch since the ranch started in 1928. Before then, it was ranched by others for many years. The ahupua`a of Ki`iokalani is directly adjacent to the Pahinahina lease of over 4000 acres and is also used for pasture purposes. p This is fee simple land, located at Malae Point and was owned by Kahua Ranch, transferred in 1989 to Ponoholo Ranch, and used long term for pasture purposes. As discussed above in the section on cultural impacts, interviews of the local kupuna, fishermen, ranch owners and the long time Hawaiian paniolo families who have used this land for generations were conducted to determine their opinion on how this proposed project might potentially affect them and their use ~ of the adjacent land. Also, the head of the nonprofit leasing the adjacent coastal parcel at Puanui owned by Bishop Estate was also consulted. Conclusions from these interviews indicate that no significant negative impact on visual resources by the proposed action is anticipated. Reasons given in the interviews for this conclusion include the 3 mile (2.6 nm) distance of the proposed site from shore, the platforms are submerged most of the time to a depth of 65 feet (20 meters), O the work boats and tops of the platforms will fit right in with the other boat traffic in the area, the navigation light is only visible two miles from the site, and the coastal area is not used for residential purposes (Ho`opai 2008, Richards 2008, Von Holt 2008). O REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO MARICULTURE PROJETCS Total Area of Proposed Use (square feet/acres): 10,759,320 square feet/247 acres. O Total Area of Proposed Exclusive Use (square feet/acres): Fishermen can fish around the Oceanspheres, but not above or below them. For safety reasons, boaters are asked to remain at least 100' from each platform's marker buoy. To determine the total area of proposed exclusive use, the calculation assumes 100' feet radius from each of the twelve platform's marker buoy, which totals 376,990.8 square feet/8.65 acres. For liability reasons, there will be no swimming or SCUBA allowed in the entire 10,759,320 square feet/247 acre site. O Total Number of Proposed Cages: 12 platforms Longitude and Latitude points of Center of Ocean Lease Site: 20°OS' 40.00" N 155°55' 40.00" W. O Describe type of cages to be used, submerged and/or surface cages. The company prefers to call the open ocean aquaculture system an "Oceansphere" platform rather than a cage, as it will not be moored to the ocean floor and will have the ability to stay on O station using its own propulsion system. The "Oceansphere" platform is a 54-m diameter self contained sphere that will not have any sharp surfaces or mooring lines to entangle wildlife. The platforms will be composed of an aluminum frame covered in anti-fouling netting with one O 31 For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 square inch openings made from Diamond Nets, a Kevlar rope. The platforms are untethered, with a dynamic positioning system which keeps the platform on station with its center at 180 foot depth using computer automated control employing both satellite global positioning satellites (GPS)/Inertial Navigation System (INS) and radio telemetry control. The propulsion system is a Persistent Oceanic Power (USPTO patent application 11/849,338) generator, and an electric pump. A directed stream of water will be used to position the platform. The Persistent Oceanic Power system will provide power for positioning, telemetry and autonomous operation. A jet stream of water is used to position the platform to avoid the use of exposed propellers. The platforms have broadcast radio identification tags. GPS P,~~:eiveef Telertietry 9uoy i7upf +_~,'a'~e Fully Enr_leisatl Rave rs iY Le X, Y,Z Tunnel, ThCl7~LZt;S ~ ~ctia ~`-~ Controlled 1`elemet ry Antennal 'ri"aini ng i,lght f?j'~LGa COli S:,1C $e15O~u /4Yfi:SSf1UC2i9 T4i]LiRfid Ltd f ~ -°" Feedir,~ Bin yC} m 0 O O O C C laca^_i~~ of `~ ?OMBC aZnE::eLQt Fart ru: Feed aispensrLi Frggh [5n r,@r Rbt;'y d G Y` CGntztz2 ~ '----- -. CCId N`d C£`. Snlec sa ;, Figure 3. Oceansphere Platform. Diagram of the Oceansphere platform showing the general mechanism for the Dynamic Positioning System. C C C C 32 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 Describe limitations on public access and how the public would be notified of limitations on O public access. Provide descriptions and diagrams of any public access lanes to be provided or allowed across or around the area. Fishermen are allowed to fish around the Oceanspheres, but not above or below them. For safety reasons, all boaters are asked to keep at least 100' from each Oceansphere's surface buoy (see Figure 3 above for a diagram showing the buoy with warning light. For liability reasons, the O public is asked not to swim or SCUBA dive anywhere in the ocean lease area. The site will be added to navigational charts as they are updated. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will conduct public outreach at all of the harbor and boat ramps across the island as well as providing information in the local papers to inform the public of this request. O Describe proposed ocean use management in the area, both within and nearby the proposed lease area. Describe if boats will be utilized and its purpose. Describe any commercial or educational tours proposed. If the proposed site will be used by the public, other parties or the applicant describe how the leased area and its environs will be managed. O In addition to the restrictions described above, two teams of offshore divers will conduct daily trips to the site, employing outboard motor vessels and SCUBA gear. The offshore dive crews will be responsible for deployment, maintenance and operation of the proposed operation. Regular duties will include monitoring the automated feed dispenser for proper operation, monitoring fish health, maintaining and cleaning platforms, and harvesting the fish. Divers will O also be trained to conduct or assist athird-party in the regular collection of water samples and in situ water quality data, as required under the NPDES permit. Working with the State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources and NOAA Fisheries, as appropriate, divers will be trained in mitigation measures for non-lethal shark control, proper procedures for managing interactions with protected species (dolphins, seals, turtles, whales) and other relevant environmental p monitoring and reporting. Hours of operation will be from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. The offshore dive crews will also be on hand to assist the work vessel during its bi- weekly trip to supply the feed canisters. With the exception of the allowance of fishermen and boaters to use the area outside of a 100'-radius of each Oceansphere platform, as described above, Hawaii Oceanic Technology does not anticipate any other public activities or commercial O or educational tours. Hawaii Oceanic Technology may entertain requests of this nature in the future if they can be accomplished safely and without overly burdening overall operations. Describe the environment and existing uses at the area and the surrounding area. Provide aerial and other relevant photographs of the area, its surrounding environment and the shoreline nearest the area. Provide surveys or diagrams of the physical features of the area including the O area's submarine topography. Include existing (before) and proposed (after) graphics. The lease area is 247 acres of undifferentiated open ocean environment. The ocean bottom at the proposed lease site is at a depth of 1,320 Feet. Bathymetric charts of the area indicate a gently sloping benthic environment with no topographical features such as seamounts or outcroppings. O According to Thurman and Webber (1984), sediment on the ocean floor is generally classified as either neritic or oceanic type deposits. Neritic deposits are along the fringes of land masses and are composed of mostly lithogenous particulate matter. A high resolution SHOLES lidar O 33 For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 chart depicting the location of the Ocean Lease Site in the general area is shown in 4. O C 4 SHOALS LIDAR Bathymetry Map of the Ocean Lease Site. Fishermen have not used the proposed ocean lease area for fishing, except perhaps to transit from nearshore fishing areas to offshore areas further to the south. The area is not considered important for seabirds, dolphins, whales, or other marine life. 34 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 O d O ',O 10 Figure 5 Satellite image of Malae Point. ,O 10 O ~ 35 ',O CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 C C E ~i Figure 6 Before: photographs showing upslope view (top) and view out to sea (bottom) of Malae point taken at 200 feet altitude. Estimate ocean lease site area of one square kilometer is depicted in photo. Am,iartist rendition of the deployment of the twelve submerged Oceanspheres is shown in Figure p 7. `The scene depicts an aerial view of the ocean lease site from a distance of three miles and shows a workboat of 45 feet length at the site. O 36 O ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 O O O O Q ~ Provide surveys, diagrams and photographs of benthic habitat features at the proposed site and the surrounding area. Locate coral reefs within the vicinity and the surrounding area on diagrams or surveys. Include marine life surveys. Indicate if any rare, threatened or endangered plants or animals occur at the area or the surrounding area. Locate and identify threatened, and/or endangered species. O Coral reef communities are the most diverse in the world. These communities are dependent on shallow water coral species which need abundant sunlight to culture algae for food. Therefore coral reef communities are not found in depths below 100 meters. Given that the proposed platforms will be about 2-I/2 miles (2.17 nautical miles) in 1,320 feet of water and miles from ~ the seaward edge of the nearest reef, no impact on the photic coral reef communities is expected. Figure 8 shows the dataset of marine bottom type/seabed classifications as recorded on the nautical charts of the seabed geology off the northwestern coast of the Island of Hawaii (State of Hawaii Office of Planning GIS Database 2007). This indicates that the bottom type consists of ~ mostly sand and basalt. The Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory HURL Submersible Pisces Dive Reports described the bottom type below 300 m in the Northern West Hawaii coast as rock ~ 37 Figure 7 Artist rendition of an aerial view of twelve deployed Oceanspheres and a 35 foot workboat from three miles away. For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 (basalt). With this information, it is assumed that the site-specific seafloor geology classification of the subject site would be rocky basalt bottom with sand areas. Figure 8. Seabed geology off the northwestern coast of the Island of Hawai`I. (State of Hawaii Office of Planning GIS Database 2007). 38 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 Coral Reefs. The primary benthic organisms of concern in Hawaii are the entire coral reef p ecosystem. The coral reef is sensitive to changes in water quality, especially from the increase in nutrients and particulate matter. Nutrients can cause algal blooms that cover corals and other benthic organisms. Extremely high levels of particulate matter can settle on the coral. Both have the effect of reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the coral, which can ultimately kill the coral. While these are important concerns, any impact from these platforms on the reef is very Q unlikely. Water quality testing of the two existing operations, CII and KBWF, indicate only slightly increased levels of nutrients and particulate matter directly down current of the platforms, reaching background levels within 99 feet (30 meters) of the platforms. In addition, surveys conducted by the State Division of Aquatic Resources biologists on the pristine reef directly inshore from the KBWF site (0.5 mile [0.8 kilometer] offshore) showed no significant O change in either coral or reef fish abundance (http://www.kona-kampachi.com). The State of Hawaii Office of Planning GIS Database 2007 maps this area as being composed mostly of rocky substrate. The site is too deep for coral reef communities which depend on sunlight and precious coral communities are patchy in this area. Figure 9 is a photo taken of basalt substrate found on the slopes of Hawaii Volcanoes. ~O Id 10 Figure 9 Photograph of pillow lava found on the slopes of Hawaii Island (Photo NURP). Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). The proposed ocean lease site is outside of the HIHWNMS at approximately the 220 fathom (1,320 feet) contour line. The sanctuary boundary ~ extends west from Keahole Point, along the 100 fathom line to Upolu Point, the northern most point of the Big Island in North Kohala. An estimated 2,000 to 5,000 humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) come to Hawaii each year between November and May, a significant I 39 O CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 7 2/2612 0 0 8 portion of the total North Pacific population of 6,000 to 10,000 whales (HIHWNMS 2003). Adult humpbacks are approximately 45 feet long and weigh 40 to 45 tons. Calves, all of which are born in Hawaiian waters, can be 14 feet long and two tons at birth. Humpbacks have very long pectoral fins, equal to approximately one-third of their body length. Humpback whales occur frequently over the winter months in the Kona and Kohala Coast area. While the proposed site is about 1-1/2 miles away from the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and in waters that are over 700 feet deeper than the deepest water of the sanctuary, it is conceivable that the whales may traverse the site. Hawaiian Monk Seals (Monachus schauinslandi). An estimated 1,252 Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) occur throughout the archipelago, with approximately 90 percent living in the North West Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). The best estimate of the population in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHl) is 52 individuals, based on aerial surveys in 2001 (Baker and Johanos 2003). Most of these seals were observed on Niihau and Kauai, although rare sightings have occurred in the waters off the Kona Coast. During two four-day periods in 2000 and 2001, NMFS conducted aerial and ground surveys. In this, the most complete stock assessment of monk seals in the MHI, only one monk seal was observed in the waters off the Island of Hawaii. In addition, one monk seal was born on Hawaii in each of these years. Monk seals are curious animals and often inspect untended nets and marine debris, which has led to the deaths of numerous seals over the years (Nitta and Henderson 1993). Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas). Green sea turtles are abundant in the waters off the Kona Coast. While total population estimates are very difficult to determine, it appears from the steady increase in nesting females at the primary rookery at French Frigate Shoals in the NWHI that this species is reaching carrying capacity (Balazs and Chaloupka 2004). In addition to the natural population at the Kona Coast, since 1990 the Mauna Lani Resort and NOAA have released over one hundred juvenile turtles that were raised for two to three years at Sea Life Park on Oahu. Many of these turtles have been released carrying a satellite transmitter that has provided a greater understanding of their movements (Figure ] 0). While some travel great distances around the islands and across deep water, they all spend most of their time in shallow foraging grounds (Balazs 1994). 40 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 2/2 612 0 0 8 Figure 10 Movement of aSatellite-Tagged Green Turtle. ~ Update as of 6/6!05: Movement of Kukini, Argos ID 25314, SLP hatched, Mauna Lani raisedjuvenile green turtle ST-10 Duty Cycle: 12 hr on, 48 hr off Age at Release: 2 years SCL: 33.4 cm Wei ht: 11 Ibs Da s Transmittin :702 da s {7 lion Potinoo O Gorrem ~os+oon u 20N• '+ Q 6 7 9 N - :~ 5th I ~ ~ ~ ~ ruovn. i.na~ nrvcrc'r 156 W 155 W WI W4K Iti.,.riLw~ VA~a3 ~ Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Of all of the sea turtles worldwide, the endangered Hawksbill turtle is considered the most reef-associated and is tmly a coastal species. While much less common in Hawaiian waters than the green turtle, resident hawksbills nest in the MHI. At most, 30 females nest in any given year at 10 beach sites found exclusively on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu (Balazs et al. 1998). A major portion of the nesting occurs on Kamehame Beach on the southeastern coast of the Island of Hawaii. The only available ~ satellite tracking is of two females in 1995. The data showed that both turtles traveled along the coast 180 miles to feeding grounds on the Hamakua coast, where they remained until they returned to Kamehame Beach to nest again. There is no significant evidence that this species, once hatchlings are settled to the reef, ever returns to the open sea (Kinan 2007). Other species of sea turtle, including the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta), C~ are rare visitors to the islands, with one and three sightings, respectively, ever in the MHI (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1998). Deep Water CoraG Deep corals occur throughout the U.S. Pacific but only the Hawaiian Archipelago and Line Islands have been the subject of any surveys. Coral habitat is patchy, ~ suggesting at least a basic need for suitable bottom type and conditions of rapid flow. The gradients in dissolved oxygen, temperature, suspended particulates, etc., are less understood. ~ 41 For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 Probably the most abundant of Hawaii's known deep corals are the precious corals, including octocorals Corallium Zaauense (red coral) and Corallium secundum (pink coral), and the zoanthid Gerardia sp. (gold coral). These species are known to occur in significant abundance in at least 16 locations in the Hawaiian Archipelago at depths of 350-600 m (Grigg 1974; 1993). Explorations have been conducted at only a few sites below precious coral depths; Pioneer Ridge, the small seamount southeast of Laysan Island, an unnamed seamount east of Necker Island, Cross Seamount, and Keahole Point. At these depths in high current areas such as ridges and pinnacles, a fair amount of overlap appears to occur in species composition of both corals and sponges between sites. Although the number of observations is very limited, there appears to be dominated by Corallium- and Gerardia-dominated communities, above 600 meters depth. Available surveys indicate coral beds dense with colonies that cover large areas are the exception. Given the region has little history of trawling and mobile bottom-tending gear, it is reasonable to assume this is the natural condition. The purple octocoral Clavularia grandiflora and Gerardia sp. were found to be equally present at intermediate depths in coral beds off of Keahole Point, Hawaii (STATE OF DEEP CORAL ECOSYSTEMS IN THE U.S. PACIFIC ISLANDS REGION: HAWAII AND THE U.S. PACIFIC TERRITORIES, Frank A. Parrish and Amy R. Baco, 2007 Report, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, NOAA). There is a wide array of invertebrate species associated with deep corals. Black corals are knciwn to be colonized by oysters, bryozoans, and shrimp (Hoover 1998). The most common invertebrates associated with the deeper precious corals include zoanthids, anemones, galathaeoid crabs, sponges, ophiuroids, and basket stars. A complete census of all of the known deep-water precious coral beds was conducted in 2000 anti 2001. This included submersible-supported surveys of the Keahole Point bed and surrounding area located at 19° 46' N, 156° 06' W. This bed is more than 20 miles from the proposed site. No known deep water coral occurs at or near the proposed ocean lease site. In 2000, researchers surveyed 16,000 square kilometers of seafloor off Keahole Point at a depth of 9,181 to 1,591 feet (360 to 485 meters). In 2001, the team returned to the same area and surveyed 24,500 square kilometers of seafloor in 1,246 to 1,483 feet (380 to 452 meters) of water (Grigg 2002). Two species of deep-water coral, Corallium reg=ale and Gerardia sp. (red and gold coral, respectively), were found in a patchy distribution at a depth of 1,247 to 1,476 feet (380 to 45Q meters). The precious coral bed off Keahole Point has been estimated at 0.96 square kilometer. The roughly equivalent numbers of young and old gold coral colonies found at Keahole Point suggest healthy recruitment to the population. Based on radiocarbon dating (Rgark et al. 2006), a typical one-inch-diameter Gerardia is approximately 800 years old. Gold coral samples collected from the Keahole Point bed ranged in age From 450 to 2,742 years. W}iile the dives focused on surveying the known precious coral beds in the area and were of limited duration (8 hours each), no benthic macrofauna was observed below these depths and only a few bottomfish were seen during the dives. Two sets of two additional dives each were conducted at the Keahole Point bed in October 2004, and focused on paleoclimatology and macroinvertebrate-associated species (HURL, pers. comm.). As with the 2000-2001 dives, deep sea corals occurred in sparse numbers and were confined to a specific depth. "At depths below about 1200 m (3,937 ft), the bottom consisted mainly of sandy silty carbonate muds and silty carbonate muds with occasional basaltic boulders." Benthic organisms were first seen shallower 42 O CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 than 800 m with increased abundance at depths of 400 m (HURL, dive logs PV-592 through PV- 595). O Provide a survey and a description of current users (military, governmental, commercial, recreational, and cultural) and their uses of the state marine waters requested for lease, including any practitioners of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights. Identify surrounding land and ocean uses and their operators. ~ An observational survey of recreational activity in the general area north of Malae Point was conducted from July to October 2008. The survey covered sixdays with low ocean swells and light trade winds. The timing of the survey was selected to ensure that it represented a period of heavy use on a weekend. During the six days of observation at the Proposed Action site, data points were gathered and recorded. Most activity in the general Malae Point area consisted of O trolling fishing vessels with some recreational dive boats. Most of the dive recreational activities are in shallower water (less than 100 feet) and most of the trolling is performed within one mile off shore. Few boats are expected to venture out into the Hawaii Oceanic Technology operations area, which would be located 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) out to sea. Barge traffic utilizes a route that places the barges further west of the Proposed Action site. O In addition, a recreational use survey was conducted in August and September, 2007 regarding use in the proposed project site area. Thirty eight users were surveyed, some by phone and others in person, and represented commercial SCUBA, snorkeling, and sailing operators; commercial and recreational fishers; and private individuals. Only eighteen percent of the respondents said CS` that they operate along the Kohala Coast between Kawaihae Harbor and Hawi, the preferred alternative, and operate between 0 and 600 feet in depth. A little over five percent of the respondents say they regularly operate around XX buoy. Nearly eighty percent of the respondents did operate west of Keahole point, and at depths up to 6,000 feet, and eighteen percent operate around buoy OT. ~ The recreation survey data indicated that recreation use along this portion of the coast is very small, only eighteen percent of the respondents indicated that they operate in the area where the proposed ocean lease site is located. Since there is nothing unique about this proposed project site compared to other areas along the coast the actual use at the project site would be even less and the area is too deep for SCUBA diving. Based on these facts the impact to recreation is O expected to be less than significant. However, there may be a small beneficial impact to recreation if the platforms act as fish attraction devices which may increase recreational fishing in the area. O 43 O For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 ~I ~ ~ Legend ~' _ , y'f. ~. ~ I~ "'~~ d•'~ ; J Oceen Lease Slte i 2aeues area. rqt tlrevm to scale) .i r ... ~ ('it,~ ~ h I 5 ~ f r • Kona Blue Water Fertns Sita (S10 aces area, nd Orawn to scale)/f,//~, I • FIah ABBraBation Devine Buoy y f ~ y ~. ~~~A .. Kealrole Pdd Precious Coral Be0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ! (0.5 nautical miles ratllus Brea, tlrevm to scale) ® ~ -(. -. pp~~ I , I,r./U Xumpbedt Whale Marina Senduary Bourltlary /~jl% rP L « ~ f. r R !r ~. t / n PAGFIC DCF_AN r~ y~. . ~„ ~. i ~, ~ ~ ~ .. •/ o z . e rz w `7-%i ~~ '. Nauliral Mibs .~ l^ . o e u to z. _ ~~ ` Mim (r I Figure 11. Map showing the location of the proposed ocean lease site in relation to precious coral beds and the Kona Blue Water Farms. [n addition, interviews with longtime `opelu fishermen, bottomfishermen and trollers were coy?ducted for the Cultural Impact Assessment, during which they described the activities and locations of these fisheries. Interviewees with master fishermen in the area noted that there were no `opelu ko`a at the proposed ocean lease site, but there were ko`a about two miles from the ~ site, located within '/z mile from the shoreline along the Pu`u Ulaula area (La`au, 2008, Cambra 2008). This distance, as well as the depth of the waters in the area of the proposed ocean lease site would result in less potential to affect the behavior of nearshore fisheries, like `opelu (La`au 2008, Cambra 2008). Evidence from the Ewa Beach fish platform is that `opelu may be attracted to the platform for some periods, but that the schools still do move up and down the C coast (Cates 2003). While it is unknown whether there is any change in the overall abundance of `opelu, or rather only in distribution, the platform will probably not exclude `opelu from the `opelu ko`a ,located over two miles away from the platforms. Interviewees noted different opinions about the positive or negative nature of the impact from the proposed aquaculture farm if it attracts fish around the farm's cages. Some were positive about C the potential affect its aggregating qualities and the potential for benefits to the local fishermen. 44 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 2/2 612 0 0 8 But, others were uncertain and expressed concern that the platforms would attract the bottomfish to deeper waters (Fukuyama 2008). There was also concern that the proposed aquaculture farm O might attract more sharks to the area with the increase in the number of fish around the cages (Akau 2008, Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008). Bottom fishermen expressed concern about this increase in sharks and its affect on the industry. A specific concern was that more sharks will steal the catch off the line when bottom fishing (Fukuyama 2008). To some native Hawaiians, the shark is a sacred animal, and is considered a member of their ohana. When developing the Q, shark management plan for the aquaculture farm, it would be important make sure that measures to keep the sharks away from working divers must be culturally appropriate. To determine how the proposed activity might affect the traditional cultural values and practices associated with the adjacent land area, twelve ahupua`a in the area were researched in the area locally known as Pu`u Ulaula (Pahinahina to Kaihooa) and Black Point (Malae Point) d (Ki`iokalani, Puaiki and Puanui), including identifying and contacting all the known and identified cultural practitioners and kupuna, local landowners or long-term lessees, the recognized konohiki of the area and the native Hawaiian families culturally attached to the land. For the interviewees who camped and shorefished along the shoreline adjacent to the proposed C2 site, they were asked to assess the impact of the proposed action, alternatives, and mitigation measures on the cultural resources, practices and beliefs. Each of them said it wouldn't affect them at all. They each emphasized that the site was far offshore, in deep water that is not used for any cultural activity, such as fishing, and was not in the path of any cultural activity such as voyaging. They also noted that the distance from shore resulted in the proposed project having (~ no impact on the viewshed from the coastal trails and camps. They said there are already boats that regularly traverse the ocean closer to shore, so a few more boats won't make a difference. In other words, the interviewees with cultural associations with the adjacent land all agreed that the addition of the proposed project's work boats and the tops of cages, will have no impact on the cultural resources, practices and beliefs (Richards 2008, Von Holt 2008, Ho`opai 2008). O No known military, Hawaiian cultural, governmental or other commercial activity occur with any known frequency in the area of the proposed ocean lease site. Kawaihae Commercial Harbor and the adjacent area have the infrastructure necessary to support the Hawaii Oceanic Technology plan. The existing tuna processing and marketing businesses in Hawaii will greatly ~ benefit from the availability of new product. Highly technical jobs with competitive salaries will become available for technical managers, hatchery technicians, computer programmers, engineers and marine scientists. O Discuss in detail the applicant's related expertise, research, planning efforts, similar projects completed or participated in and other related projects previously or currently undertaken that aide in the conduct of the proposed project or provide valuable experience. Provide relevant project results, if applicable. Hawaii Oceanic Technology founder, Dr. Paul J. Troy, will serve as Chief Technology Officer. ~ He holds a PhD in Oceanography from University of Hawaii Manoa, Department of Oceanography 1995, and is an expert in engineering, technical management, thermodynamics, O 45 For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 C spectroscopy and advanced naval technology. He was nominated for the Christopher Columbus Foundation, Homeland Security Award and the Frank Annunzio Award for Science and Technology in 2005. Dr. Troy's dissertation research included the culture of marine plankton, C calculations of upper oceanic thermodynamics, and carbonate surface chemistry. While faculty at University of Hawaii, Manoa, he designed, deployed and recovered 4.5 Km drifting vertical arrays in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans to measure carbon fluxes directly. While serving as Senior Scientist for a Honolulu defense contracting firm he has overseen the development of advanced marine surveillance technology which is in use by oceanographers and the Navy today. ,C Dr. Troy has attended the two week workshop "2007 Workshop on Physiology and Aquaculture of Pelagics with Emphasis on Reproduction and Early Development Stages of Yellowfin Tuna" at the Achotines Laboratory in Panama. The Achotines Laboratory is the world's leaders in Yellowfin tuna culture. Dr. Troy has over 20 years of proven achievement in marine research and scientific engineering. C Bill Spencer, a seasoned serial entrepreneur and President of the Hawaii Venture Capital Association, will serve as the CEO of the company and be responsible for fund raising and business development. Spencer has an undergraduate degree from Georgetown University and a Master's degree in Health Science from Johns Hopkins. The board advisors include; Dr. Phillip McGillivary, Science Liaison, US Coast Guard (Fish Biologist, Aquaculture), Dr. Kevin Hopkins, UH Hilo, and Dr. Jo-Ann C. Leong, Director Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, Dr. Roger Lukas, Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, John Wiltshire, Ph.D., Associate Director, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii. Discuss information regarding environmental, economic or research issues related to the size and location of the proposed use. Open ocean aquaculture is an emerging industry and government agencies, environmental organizations, industry and the public have raised a wide variety of questions regarding the impact that this industry may cause on the environment. Research has been ongoing for a number of years at the University of Hawaii and across the world to address these questions, improve techniques, and help to develop this industry as environmentally friendly and compatible with other ocean uses. The two currently active open ocean aquaculture operations have monitoring programs and other studies associated with them. Hawaii Oceanic Technology agrees with the need to partner with researchers to address the uncertainties in this industry and will enthusiastically support additional research to that end. Because of the scale of the proposed project, the applicant followed the recommendation of the DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands and is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project. To contribute to better understanding and management of the open ocean aquaculture industry, the company anticipates it will carry out ongoing environmental monitoring programs for water quality, and documentation of interactions with protected species, like whales, dolphins, monk seals, and turtles, as well as sharks. 46 O CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 Primary reasons for selecting this proposed site for the aquaculture operation is its proximity to Kawaihae Commercial Harbor, the longtime use of the adjacent coastal lands for ranching, the O lack of residential areas on the adjacent coastal lands, and the low level of fishing activity or other recreational or commercial activity in the 1,320 feet deep waters of the site, located 2.6 nm from shore. The existing tuna processing and shipping businesses will benefit directly from a new supply of O product. Fisherman will benefit from the insignificant additional pressure from this operation on the existing ahi fisheries. High paying jobs in the high technology sector will become available for local jobseekers and the local economy will greatly benefit from the substantial revenues coming in to the state. Local boat owners and servicemen will benefit from contracts with Hawaii Oceanic Technology. ~ List each proposed structure, project element and use. Indicate the area required for each individual structure, project element or use. Indicate the duration for each structure, project element or use. Provide an overall site plan that shows the location of the structures or elements of the proposed uses in relation to the surrounding environment. Q When fully operational, there will be 12 platforms deployed at the proposed lease area. The specifications of these platforms aze described above. The 54-m diameter platforms will be submerged to a depth below 65 feet (20 meters) and raised to near the surface of the water for regular maintenance. The platforms will be evenly distributed within the 247 acre lease area as shown in Figure 2 above. Feed canisters will be attached to automated feeders on the top of each O platform every two weeks during regular maintenance. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will lease a commercial lot in the Kawaihae Commercial Harbor that will include an office, a large fenced area for storage of tools and equipment, personal SCUBA gear and an air compressor for SCUBA tanks, three large pick-up trucks and three work boats approximately 35 feet in length each equipped with two 150 hp outboard engines. O The operation will ramp up slowly, reaching capacity within five years. The first platform and associated apparatus will be deployed in 2010, with two more platforms deployed in 2011. Four additional platforms will be deployed in 2012 and five platforms in 2013 until all 12 platforms are operational at the lease site. O Please note a Management Plan for any Mariculture/Aquaculture use must include a discussion of the requirements identified in HAR, Chapter 13-5, Section 13-5-39, and Exhibit 3. The following information needs to be answered in the Management Plan: 1) location of O proposed aquaculture farm (include water depth, general site description); 2) number of acres and square feet; 3) longitude and latitude coordinates; 4) acres and/or square footage of exclusive use (if any); 5) fish species to be cultured; 6) hatchery and/or stock techniques; 7) sea cage(s) description and diagrams (i.e. size of cages, number of cages, type of cages (submersible and/or surface cages), moorings, Coast Guard regulations regarding surface obstructions, cage mesh; S) sea cage(s) construction plan (deployment, construction, O anchoring); 9) Operations (species biology, spawning, stocking, feeding, farm biology, population genetics, disease, harvesting, productive lifespan and farm waste, rearing, breeding, harvesting, damage assessments, maintenance, cleaning of cages); 10) work vessel(s) (type, ~ 47 CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 12/26/2008 location of anchorage); 11) number of crew; 12) work hours 13) estimated total annual production numbers; and 14) how cages will be removed. The Management Plan should include the following diagrams: 1) sea cage(s) type; 2) arrangement of cages; and 3) mooring and anchoring Adjacent Property Owners Please list all adjacent property owners. If no address is available indicate north, south, east and west or mauka, makai or other common county directionals. There are no adjacent property owners. The proposed site is over ceded trust lands and are owned and administered by the State of Hawaii. CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION AND THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPLICATION AND ALL ATTACHMENTS AND EXHIBITS IS COMPETE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY REQUESTED INFORMATION OR MISSTATEMENTS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR EITHER REFUSING TO ACCEPT THIS APPLICATION, FOR DENYING THE PERMIT, FOR SUSPENDING OR REVOKING A PERMIT ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MISREPRESENTATIONS, OR FOR SEEKING OF SUCH FURTHER RELIEF AS MAY SEEM PROPER TO THE LAND BOARD. I HEREBY AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES TO CONDUCT SITE INSPECTIONS ON MY PROPERTY. UNLESS ARRANGED OTHERWISE, THESE SITE INSPECTIONS SHALL TAKE PLACE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. AND 4:30 P.M. 48 ~ CDUA For Use of State Marine Waters 1 212 612 0 0 8 Signature of Authorized Agent(s) or if no agent, signature of Applicant Q AUTHORIZATION OF AGENT I HEREBY AUTHORIZE TO ACT AS MY REPRESENTATIVE AND TO BIND ME IN ALL MATTERS CONCERNING THIS ~ APPLICATION. ~~ 0 Signature of Applicant(s) ~~ i~ Q ~~ ~~ • ~ 49 Attachment 1 Location/Area Plan Refer to Figure 1-1 in the CDUA fox a map showing the proposed location of the Open Ocean Aquaculmre site. "1"he accompanying Environmental Impact Statement contains additional details regarding the proposed project. Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -CDUA 0 Attachment 2 O Q ~,~ I~ ID Site Plan Refer to Figure 1-2 of the CDUA shouring a diagram of the Site Plan. Refer to the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement fox additional details regarding the proposed project site. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -CDUA 0 Attachment 3 Emergency Response Plan Q Oceansphere Platforms The company will contract unth a salvage compan}S such as the "Raven" stationed out of Honokohau Manna, that can provide 24/7 emergency response in case an Oceansphexe ~ becomes inoperative. Upon Eailuxe of the propulsion system an ocean sail, or deep sea anchor will be automatically deployed Erom the bottom of the platform and a warning signal will be relayed to the ground station. The sea anchor will be deployed to slow the drift of the platform in the surface current The sea anchor is made of cloth and shaped like a parachute. When deplo}ed, the sea anchor will float just under the platform, and the water moving past the sea anchor will keep it filled to resist drifr. Onboard monitors will send a signal to the monitoring 0 station that a problem has occurred and the salvage crew will be deployed. The incident will be immediately reported by phone to: Captain John J. Hickey, Commanding Officer USCG ISC Honolulu 400 Sand Island Parkway Honolulu, Hawaii 96819-4398 Phone: (808) 842-2000 ~ Fax: (808) 842-2009 The submerged position of the platforms will make them much less vulnerable to severe weather; however the effect of a tsunami is hard to anticipate. To the extent there is sufficient warning, the platforms will be evacuated and removed from the danger zone if possible. d The company anticipates having the ability to monitor breaches in the platform structure. The platform netting is a Kevlar based material which would be very hard to be cut by diaexs using typical knives. "1'he company u~l] have onboard monitoring equipment and video which should deter attemp[s at theft and vandalism. Fish Health The company will engage pathologists at the Hawaii Instinrte of Marine Biology to constantly monitor the health of the fish. Fish will be monitored by video and SCUBA divers. Mortalities will be removed daily and examined for disease by the Hawaii Institute of Maxine Biology. If a disease or pathogen is detec[ed, the fish will be removed from the platforms and the platform ~ will be cleaned and inspected before returning it into operation. The company anticipates cleaning the platforms roudndy between harvests. O Hawaii Oceanic 1-echnology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA ~ Q Attachment 4 Q Business Plan Project Financing Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. has been certified by the Hawaii State Department of Taxation as a Qualified High Technology Business in the category of Ocean Science. This i Q makes the company eligible to receive financing set forth in HRS section 235-110.9, also known as Act 221/215. As of December 29, 2006, the company has received sufficient private investment to pursue patents and trademarks, research and development activities, pursuit of appropriate permits and a marine lease. Additional funding has been obtained in 2007 that is supporting engineering and design work, hatchery preparation and contractor selection leading up to future operations of the company's open ocean aquaculruxe platforms called j ~ "Oceanspheres." The company has submitted a Small Business Innovation Research grant application [o the U.S. Department of Agxiculruxe to raise big eye tuna and is awaiting a decision. The company may seek giants and contracts from ocher federal agencies. ~ The company plans to raise additional private investment capital at the end of 2008 in order to pursue permits, undertake engineering, procurement and construction planning and develop the hatchery capacity. Additional capital is being raised in 2009 and 2010 to complete prepare for and begin construction of the first Oceansphere open ocean aquaculruxe platform planned for deployment by the end of 2010. ~ ~ Breakdown of Project Funding by Source and Amount December 2006 -Private placement bridge note in the amount of $535,000 December 2007 -Private placement in the amount of $1,000,000 (includes conversion of bridge note) December 2008 -Private placement in the amount of $1,000,000 June 30, 2009 -Private placement in the amount of $1,000,000 Grants and Loan Received or Applied For and All States and Counties Involved Including Federal or Other Funds Administered by State and County Agencies US Department of Agriculture SBIR applied for September 2008 - $100,000 Production Levels When all twelve Oceanspheres axe deployed by 2013, the company expects ro produce approximately 6,000 tons of Ahi pet year. Twelve platforms will be deployed between 2010 and Q 2013. Deployment schedule is one platform in 2010, two platforms in 2011, four in 2012, and five in 2013. Ahi will be reared from eggs in hatchery facilities under contract to the company. The fingerlings will be six months old before being tsansfexred to the Oceansphexes. The Ahi will be harvested when the average weight per fish equals 100 pounds. This will be approximately 12 ~ months from the time they are put into the water. Therefore, the first harvest of 1,000 tons will occur in 2012, 3,000 tons will be harvested in 2013, and 6,000 tons will be harvested by 2014. I ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA O Thereafter, we expect to harvest approximately 6,000 tons per year. Platforms unll be cleaned and serviced between harvests. Product Markets ~ The company's goal is to produce the highest possible grade of Ahi (13igeye and Yellowfin) fox markets in Hawaii, the US mainland and Japan. Although we plan to introduce our product and the "1{ing AhiT""' brand via Hawaii based restaurants, hotels and seafood vendors, our primary markets axe the mainland and Japan. Mainland consumption of sashimi grade Ahi exceeds Q 45,000 tons per year. Japanese consumption of sashimi grade Ahi exceeds GOQ000 tons per year. The company anticipates working with Hawaii and Japanese wholesaler/distributors to reach the mainland and Japanese markets. Once Eu11y operational the company expects to generate approximately X120 million in gross revenues from the sale of Ahi. Rather than harvest all at once, the company anticipates "harvesting on demand" and fulfilling large orders as they are ~ placed. This will allow us to provide a superior and extremely fresh product that can go from ocean to market in the shortest amount of time possible, typically 72 hours or less. This is an important part of the company's business plan and will justify distinguishing the product in the marketplace by using the King Ahi brand. Day to Day Operations The Ahi farm will operate out of an office and work area in Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. The company will lease an area of undeveloped land within the Kawaihae Harbor and build its own office and work yard. The area will have two work trucks, a refrigerated truck, nvo work boats and an office. The office will contain a radio telemetry stacion with monitoring stations and ~ employee offices. Tuna hatchery will operate out of the existing Pacific Aquaculture and Coastal Research Center, PACRC University of Hawaii, Hilo. Seven broodstock tunas will be held in a large concrete tank to produce fertilized eggs. The eggs will be collected and raised to fingerling size in smaller land based holding tanks at the PACRC facility. The fingerlings will be transferred [o the holding tank of a ship at Hilo Harbor, and transported to the Ocean Lease Site. There the tuna fingerlings will be pumped down into the Oceansphere where they will grow out to market size. Once procedures and best practices have been established, the company will seek to lease facilities at PACRC, or sub-contract hatchery work with a company based at NELHA. Ahematively, the company may build its own hatchery facility. Maimenance crews in two work boats will exit Kawaihae in the early morning to transit to the Ocean Lease Site. One Oceansphexe will be brought to the surface and refilled with tuna pelletized feed which axe pre-allocated into specially developed canisters that will be inserted into the Oceansphere feeding system. The old feed canister will be retrieved and a filled one replaced in its stead. Each Oceansphere will have its food supply replaced approximately once every 14 days. Workers will obsen~e the tuna heahh remotely via various i5pes of remote Q monitoring equipment including web cams. Mortalities will be retrieved as needed using the Seabotics Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV). All mortalities will be packaged and transported to HIMB pathologist to examine the corpse and detextnine the cause of death. Oceansphere position will be continuously monitored by automated computer algorithms and observers on a 24/7 basis using the latest communication technologry via the Internet. A salvage ~ contract will be in place with a large salvage vessel such as the "Raven" in Honokohau Marina. Observers will operate 24 hours a day and seven days a week. If there is an Oceansphere Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA 0 malfunction the observers will alert a work crew which will be dispatched in a timely fashion. The observers will alert the US Coast Guard as stipulated in the emergency response plan. The Q maintenance crew will capture the Oceansphere and company crews will replace the faulty part and redeploy. Ox if it is unfixable on site, the mna will be harvested, and the Oceansphexe will be retrieved. The Oceanspheres will be taken out of the water fox maintenance approximately once a year. On days of harvest, one Oceansphere will be brought to the surface and a conveyor belt will be Q lowered into the Oceansphexe from the harvest work boat. The tuna will be corralled by tightening an internal netting system and shepherded onto the conveyor belt by divers, thereby transporting them onto the deck of the harvest work boat where they will be humanely euthanized and immediately placed on ice and iced brine. Tuna will be brought into Kawaihae Commercial Harbor and transshipped to fish processing and transportation companies located in Hilo and the Kona Airport. Q Q Q ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA 0 Attachment 5 Management Plan ~ 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION LOCATION ~ Pursuant to Section 13-5-34 HAR, Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. requests a Board Permit to allow an ocean lease for open ocean aquaculmre offshore of Malae Point, North Kohala, Hawaii (see Figure 1-I in the CDUA). The open ocean aquaculmre operation will occupy the surface and water column of the State marine ~ waters and submerged lands classified in the Resource Subzone per section 13-5-13 (5) HAR. This use is consistent with the Conservation District, and the Resource Subzone, as identified in section 13-5-24 R-1 i.e. Aquaculture. The farm will be located in waters of 1,320 feet (40234 meters) depth, over soft sand substrate, exposed to good current flows. For these reasons, we expect to see minimal environmental impacts (see attached Draft Environmemal Impact Statement). C Because of its depth, and the paucity of the bottom biota, there is minimal use of the area at present The proposed site lies outside the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary off Malae Point (Figure 1-1 in the CDUA). The open ocean aquaculmre (OOA) operations site will be 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) southwest of Malae Point off the North Kohala coast. The center ~of the site is ~ 20°OS' 40.00" N 155°55' 40.00" W consisting of approximately 247 acres of open ocean. The water depth at the site is 1,320 feet. The 12 Oceanspheres will be evenly distributed within the ocean lease site (sec Figure 2 in CDUA). The water depth at the site is 1,320 feet (40234 meters); the Oceansphexes will be submcrgcd to a depth of below 65 feet (20 meters) from the water surface. C SPECIES CULTURED Hawaii Oceanic Technology intends to raise G,000 tons per year of yellowfin mna C (Thunnrr,r albacare,r) and~or bigeye mna (Thunnu,r ohe.cu.r) in an open ocean location 2.6 miles (4.2 kilometers) offshore in twelve submcrgcd platforms called Oceanspheres when fully operational by 2013. Both of these species are referred to as Ahi by the local Hawaii communiR~. Fingerlings gill be grown out from eggs and will be supplied by the Pacific Aquaculmxe & Coastal Resources Centex (PACRC). Each C Oceansphcre will be fitted with an automated Feed dispenser. The mna will be hatched at PACRC and grown to platform transferable size in land-based tanks. The mna will be transferred to the open ocean platforms when they are approximately 12 inches in length and 5 pounds in weight, and will be grown to one hundred pounds in size. The fingerlings will be placed in the holding tank of a ship and transported from Hilo to the proposed ocean lease site, where they will be pumped ~ through a hose into the submerged Oceanspheres. The mna will be harnested at sea Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA 0 for transport to Kawaihae Commercial Harbor and to a Kona-based fish processor and distributor, or through Hilo Harbor to a Hilo-based processor and distributor, , Q where they will be prepared for shipping to the US mainland, Japan, and local markets. OCEANSPHERE DESCRIPTIONS O Oceanrphere Open Ocean Platforms. The Oceansphere open ocean platforms will be self- contained spheres and will not have any sharp surfaces or dangling lines to entangle wildlife (See Figure 3 in the CDUA). The platforms will be 54 meters in height with a 54 meter diameter and will be composed of an aluminum frame covered in anti- fouling netting with one-square-inch stitching made from O.OS-inch- (0.002-meter-) diameter Kevlar from diamond Ncts and is easily spliced. The sofr, torque free braided construction of the netting provides easy handling. The platforms will be untethcred to the ocean bottom, with a dynamic positioning system (DPS) that keeps the platform on station using computer-automated control employing both O satellite global positioning systems (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) and 24/7 land-based radio telemetry control. The propulsion system includes a Persistent Oceanic Power (POP) (USPTO 11/849,338) generator and an electric pump-directed stream of water that well be used to position the Oceansphere (Figure 3). The POP will provide power fox positioning, telemetry, and autonomous operation. The Oceansphere platforms are capable of submerging to a ~ preprogrammed depth and sta}ing on station using GPS/DPS, radio telemetr} and INS and computer control. The Oceansphexes have broadcast radio identification tags. O CONSTRUCTION PLAN Primary construction of the platforms will be done at sub-contractor locations and shipped to the Hawaii Oceanic Technology fox assembly on site in the ocean. Major components of the platforms will be assembled on land in[o sub-assemblies. The Q subassemblies will be transported to the lease site where final assembly will take place in the water. The business plan calls fox the production of 6,000 tons of Ahi per year. The operation will ramp up slowly, reaching capacity within five years. The first platform and associated appaxams will be deployed in 2010, two more platforms will be in place in 2011, four in 2012 and five more in 2013. ~ OPERATION PLAN Operations fox the Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculmxe Project include feeding, maintenance, and harnesdng activities, as described below. Hawaii Oceanic O Technology will provide at least 22 Eull-time equivalent jobs by year five, with an average salary of $51,500. Employees will a Site Manager, 3 Oceansphere operators, Operations Coordinator, 5 Seaman, 3 Biologists, 4 Divers and 5 Laborers. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA 0 Additionally, Hawaii Oceanic Technology activities will provide the marine community with contracts fox salvage, txansportadoq Oceanspherc maintenance, and boat ]easing. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will follow best management practices in the operation of this project. 1) location of proposed aquacultuxe farm (include water depth, general site description); 2) number of acres and square feet; 3) longirude and latirude coordinates; State Marine Waters off of the North Kohala Coast, approximately three miles (2.6 nautical miles) due southwest of Malae Point. The site is in 1320 Eeet of water. 247 acres and 10,759,320 ft~ The center of the ocean lease site is 20 (15'40.00"itiT 155 55'40.00" W 4) acres and/or square footage of exclusive use (if any); 5) fish species to be cultured; 6) hatchery and/ox stock techniques; Fishermen arc allowed to fish around the Oceanspheres, but not above or below them. For safety reasons, all boaters are asked to keep 100' from the Oceansphere's surface buoy. For liability reasons, the public is asked not to swim or SCUBA dive an}nvhere in the ocean lease area. Thunnu.r Obe.ru, big eye tuna and TGunnu.c Alhacarer vellowfin runa Hatchery from broodscock caught in Hawaiian waters. The fish urill be spawned in land based tanks and grown to fingerling size at PACRC, Hilo. The fingerlings will be transfer to the Oceansphexe in ship board holding tanks and pumped down into the Oceanspheres. 7) sea cage(s) description and diagrams (i.e. size of cages, number of cages, type of cages (submersible and/or surface cages), moorings, Coast Guard regulations regarding surface obstructions, cage mesh; C C C C C E C E Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA 0 Oceansphere Description The Oceanspheres will be self contained spheres and will not have any sharp ~ surfaces or dangling lines to entangle wildlife or interfere with navigation or fishing. Each cage volume is 82,406 cubic meters, stocking density is less than 1 fish per 4 cubic meters and the single cage production is estimated at 1,000 tons of Ahi per year. The Oceanspheres anll be composed of an anodized aluminum frame covered in taut, and-fouling netting. The netting is one-squue-inch stitching made from ~ 0.08-inch- (0.002-meter-) diameter Kevlar as supplied by Diamand Nets and is easily spliced. The soft, torque free braided construction of the netting provides easy handling. The Oceanspheres will be untethexed to the ocean bottom, with a d}'namic positioning system (DPS) [hat keeps the Oceansphere on station using computer-automated control employing both satellite global positioning systems ~ (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) and 24/7 land-based radio telemetry control. The propulsion system includes a Persistem Oceanic Power (1'OP) patent application USPTO 11/849,338) generator and duplicated x,y,z tunnel electric thrusters that will be used to position the Oceansphexe. ~ The Oceansphere will be untethered, dynamically positioned on station using computer automated control employing both onboard satellite GPS/DPS and shore-based radio telemetry. A directed jet stream of water and shielded electric tunnel thrusters located in the central stem will be used to maintain the Oceansphere on station. The POP will provide power fox positioning, telemetn~, ~ and autonomous operation. The Oceanspheres are capable of submerging to a preprogrammed depth and staving on station using GPS/DPS, radio telemetry and INS and computer control, shown below. The Oceanspheres have broadcast radio identification tags as prescribed by the USCG Automated Identificatio^ System (USCG-AIS). ~ 8) sea cage(s) construction plan (deployment, construction, anchoring); Occansphere axe modular in construction consisting of the self contained central stem and buckybal] spherical hexagon and pentagon panels. The hexagon and pentagon and central stem will be brought to the site. The central spar will be ~ positioned with the work ship A frame winch in the water and divers will assemble the buckyball sphere from the hexagon and pentagon panels. The open ocean platforms will be self-contained spheres and will not have an}~ sharp surfaces or dangling lines to entangle wildlife. The platforms will be composed of an ~ aluminum frame covered in anti-fouhng netting with one-square-inch stitching made from 0.08-inch- (0.002-meter-) diameter Kevlar manufacmxed by Diamond Nets.. The soft, torque free braided construction of the netting provides easy handling. The platforms will be untethexed to the ocean bottom, with a dynamic positioning system (DPS) that keeps the platform on station using computer-automated control employing both satellite global positioning systems (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Q Systems (INS) and 24/7 land-based radio telemetry control. The propulsion system includes a Persistent Oceanic Power (POP) (provisional patent # 11 /849, 338) generator and an electric pump-directed stream of water that will be used to ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - CDUA 0 position the platform (Figure 3 in the CDUA). The POP will provide power Eox positioning, telemetry, and autonomous operation. The platforms are capable of submerging to a preprogrammed depth and staying on station using GPS/DPS, C radio telemetry and iNS and computer control. The platforms have broadcast radio identification tags. 9) Operations (species biology, spawning, stocking, feeding, farm biology, population genetics, disease, harnesting, productive lifespan and farm waste, rearing, ~' breeding, harvesting, damage assessments, maintenance, cleaning of cages); Fingerlings will be produced from eggs under contract to PACRC in Hilo. The fingerlings will be placed in the holding tank of a ship and transported Efom Hilo to the ocean lease site, where they will be pumped through a hose into the submerged C Oceansphere platforms. Feeding. Ahi require nvo pounds of dry feed fox every pound of wet weight that they grow; for example, 200 Ibs (90.7 kilograms) of dry feed will be required to grow a 100-1b (45.4 kilograms) tuna. Dxy feed will be purchased from a commercial C supplier and will be inspected by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture before being accepted. The source of the feed is determined by the supplier and the Hawaii Oceanic Technology will specifiy the content of the feed and yuality standards. Additionally, Hawaii Oceanic Technology will contract wi[h Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) fish pathologist to inspect feed fox the presence of disease C pathogens. When fully operational the company will reyuire 1,000 tons (900 metric tonnes) of feed stock per month arriving in 40 containers. This supply will be received at Kawaihae Harbor. The feed will be loaded into feeding canisters for shipment to the C ocean lease site. Once on station, empty canisters, located in the central stem of each platform, will be replaced. Fccd will be dispensed with an automated feed dispenser built into the stem of the aquaculture platform. A crane onboard the feed boat will be used to replace the canisters. No ground transportation of feed is anticipated other than within the Kawaihae Harbor area. ~ Once on station, the food canisters will be transferred into the stem of the platforms. This will occur once a month. The company will investigate supplementing the fish-based feed stock with protein fillers supplied by local farmers in the future to reduce the need fox acquiring feed from outside Hawaii. ~ SCUBA divers will periodically observe and record feeding behavior, and this information will be used to maximize the feeding efficiency. Platform Maintenance and Tuna Health Inspections. SCUBA divers will be deployed almos[ daily to inspect the health of the tuna; observe the feeding of tuna, and remove mortalities. Platforms being serviced will be raised to around fifteen feet C before divers mill begin their work. Once maintenance is completed, the platforms Hawaii Oceanic technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA 0 will be sent back to their original depth with the center at 180 feet (55 meters). Workers will visit the site every work day to maintain platforms and to supervise ~ dehvery of feed. SCUBA divers will be deployed while workers maintain the platforms. Ongoing fish health will be mottitoxed through a contract with Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (H1i~1B) fish pathologists. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will contract with a third party salvage/emergency team, like the work boat "Raven" based in Honokohau, to be on call 24 hours to retrieve platforms in the event they ~ begin to drift off station. Periodically, platforms will be disassembled at the ocean ]ease site and placed on work boats for transport to the maintenance site fox refitting before redeployment. Q Harvesting. Tuna will be harvested from the platforms at sea by landing the fish onto work boats. The harvesred fish will be put on ice onboard and transported to a fish processing center. The fish will be transported to Kawaihae Haxbox and transshipped to Kona, ox if necessary, transported to Hilo Harbor and transshipped ~ to Hllo fox delivery to existing wholesalers/distributors for processing and shipping. A portion of the harvest will be iced and prepared fox delivery to wholesalers and distributors on the Islands of Hawaii, Oahu, Maui, and Kauai. Where possible, product will be put on a refrigerated delivery truck and sent to neighboring islands ~ via container barges or the Hawaii Supexferry.-The majoring of the han~est unll be iced and shipped via air freight to wholesalers and distributors on the US mainland and Japan. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will work with existing fish processors who have ~ approved waste management practices and policies. In addition, Hawaii Oceanic Technology will encourage these fish processing companies to provide its waste stream to local companies that will convert the resource into a viable input to livestock feed, a source of feedstock for renewable energy production, and a viable source of gamma 3 fatty acids for vitamin supplement industry. By managing the O waste in this manner, Hawaii Oceanic Technology intends to keep this waste out of the island's landfills and the receiving waters of the U.S. 10) work vessel(s) (type, location of anchorage); ~ Three work boats of approximately 35 feet will be used as well as a specialized harvest/feed boat, which will be anchored within Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. 11) number of crew; 10 12) work hours: 6 am till 6 pm daily and 24/7 on call monitoring of Oceanspheres 13) estimated total annual production numbers; 6000 tons of Ahi per year ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA 0 14) how cages will be removed. An A frame on the specialized workboat will haul the Oceansphere out of the water and on deck fox maintenance operations. Periodically, Oceansphexes will be disassembled at the OOA site and placed on a ship far transport to the maintenance site at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor Eor refttting before being redeployed. Any periodic repairs will take place on site. To disassemble the Oceansphere, the center stem will be attached to a line from an A frame from the work boat. Divers will disassemble the cage by unbolting the individual panels and stacking them on the deck of the work ship. The center stem will then be brought onboard the ship and the cold water pipe disassemblcd. The cage and the cold water pipe are modular design and are easily disassembled at sea. The Management Plan should include the following diagrams: 1) sea cage(s) qpe; ,. i, ?.acllo Cantr~l led Gtr5 Recef•Jerl Te?eme r_ry Telemetry B-aoy nncennaJ k~arntng I.!.qh_. H}'drnar_r~+3u*_1G S?*r aGrS Guplica4e F`e71'ty rr..tcl.4Sv2,~ ~ 1Trarsduce:-s AaCcarnnied k=_vm rst.~l.~ X, S', 7. /` ~.-'"" z22Cli n:3 Sin r' c`eAd ~E°p~n3err' (,{?Ccl; Sots of '* Fre h [tiatee Paver renerat Gr ~df*, ~~~ ~ ~`~ /` EGG[3 y$n rdy' G•3:5 i': YCl 1.. ~ ^_ i`tl8t Map of the Proposed Action at Preferred OOA Site 1. The proposed lease site is centered at 20°O5' 40.00" N 155°55' 40.00" W, shown here with spacing of twelve Occanspheres within the ocean lease site to maximize mixing. i 4 ra 54 m C C C C C C C C Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA 0 O 247 Acre Ocean Lease Area Tj , 20° 5" 53.72" N 155" 55' SS.GB" \\% i i i i O i ~'/ 2(f' S' 40.00" N O 15S" 55' 40.Ik1" C1T ---------------- 2l7• ~ 53.72" N 755°552 36"U' I,320 feet ~{'arer depth ~ ~ O O O O Ownership. The offshore waters axe owned by the State of Hawaii, and axe administered by the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Resources. The deep water and rocky basalt bottom and coarse sand substrate O supports vcn~ little flora or fauna. A survey of activity in nearby areas showed that here was negligible public use of the immediate area (fox additional information on land use, refer to the accompanying environmental impact statement). The proposed project will not impede access to these areas. The area is not a significant habitat fox birds. There is no historical significance to the site. O Presence of Threatened or Endangered Species. The area lies outside the Hawaii Island Humpback Whale ATadonal Marine Sanctuary, and humpback whales 20' S' 26.04" i\ 155° 5S' 55.68" \~~: j 1000 m 3,81 feet '0" 5 26.(14" N 155° SY 24.36" A~ ~ 2.(~ nm to ,,\lalae Point 1000 m 3,281 feet"_.._.... 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ON PARCEL O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA C may transit the site and area during winter months. However, no entanglement risk or other adverse interactions are expected, because the platforms will not be tethered and taut mesh on the platform kames. No adverse interactions are ~'. expected. Other endangered species do notfreyuentthe area. Constraints. None. The area is part of State Marine Waters, but is not subject to heavy surf action because of the water depth. The platforms will be untethered to the ocean bottom, with a dynamic positioning system (DPS) that keeps the platform (,) on station using computer-automated conaol employing both satellite global positioning systems (GPS)/inertial Navigation Systems (INS) and 24/7 land-based radio telemetry control. Existing land uses. There are no existing structures in the proposed lease area. C Existing Conservation District Use Permits. None. Access. The deep water offshore lease area can only be reached by boat or other watercraft. C Soils. The area of the proposed lease has a depth of 1,320 feet (402.34 meters). The seafloor geology classification of the subject site would be rocky basalt bottom with sand areas. 3. PROPOSED LAND USES ON PARCEL Description of proposed Land Use. The open ocean ayuaculmre site will occupy the surface and water column of the State marine waters and submerged lands classified in the Resource Subzone per section 13-5-13 (S), and section 13-5-24 R-1 AQUACULTURE. C Site Plan. See Figure 2 in the CDUA. Relationship to other land uses. The site is more than two miles from important coastal fishing grounds, and is approximately 10 miles west Exom the closest State of C Hawaii FAD buoy (Buoy X~. The site was specifically chosen to be away from official shipping lanes that emanate from Kawaihae harbor south of the proposed site. The platforms will also be submerged with their top to a depth of below 65 feet (20 meters), removing any possibility of becoming a hazard to navigation. Due to the distance from land and depth of water, this area is far removed from all forms of C public recreation except for deep sea sport fishing. This area is indistinguishable from all other waters offshore of the Kohala coast and should not interfere with this activity. Expected timing. The operation will ramp up slowly, reaching capacity within five C years. The first platform and associated apparatus will be deployed in 2010, with nvo more platforms deployed in 2011. Four addirional platforms will be deployed in Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -CDUA 0 2012 and five more platforms in 2013 until all 12 platforms are operational at the lease site. Q Monitoring strategies. A long term water quality monitoring program will be implemented at the Hawaii Oceanic Technology's expense, as part of the NPDES requirements, to track impacts on water quality and benthic habitat The specific details of parameters, sites and frequency of sampling will be determined in Q consultation with the State Deparunent of Health Clean Water Branch, as part of the process of obtaining the NPDES permit. Environmental Impact Statement. A draft Environmental Impact Statement is included in the package, and is attached. Q 4. REPORTING SCHEDULE Time duration of management plan: The management plan shall remain in effect Eox the full duration of the lease. Q Annual reporting schedule: Hawaii Oceanic Technology will be subject to annual reporting requirements under the Aquaculmre License law. A copy of the annual report will be provided to DLNR, along with the reports from the water quality monitoring program, as appropriate. Q Annual reporting requirements: The Aquaculmre License law requires details on number of protected animals held on the farm. The water quality monitoring program will provide raw data, analysis and interpretation of the germane parameters, and assessment of the extent and impact of any changes in benthic community or substrate beneath the farm. Q Q Q Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - CDUA 0 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ~ for the AHI AQUACULTURE PROJECT o KOHALA COAST, HAWAII 0 0 0 0 O December 29, 2008 Prepared for: Hawaii Oceanic Technology 425 South Street, #2902 Honolulu, HI 96813 ~ (808) 225-3579 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. ~ 737 Bishop Street, Suite 3020 Honolulu, HI 96813 (808)533-3366 O O Summary Sheet (Abstract) DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Hawaii Oceanic Technology proposes to culture }'ellowfin and bigeye tuna using a closed loop aquaculmre process, in which the fingexlings axe grown from hatchery spawn of captured broodstock. The company proposes to grow out the tuna to market size in offshore submerged cages, segregated by species, that axe self-powered un-tethered 54m- diameter "Oceanspheres." The proposed ocean lease site is a one square kilometer (247-acre) site, 1,320-feet deep, located 2.6 nautical-miles offshore Malae Point, North Kohala. Twelve ~ Occanspheres will be deployed incrementally over four years, culminating with an annual production capacity of G,000 tons. Fingerlings will be grown in land-based tanks at the Pacific Aquaculmre and Coastal Resource Center in Hilo from eggs collected from locally-caught broodstock. About seven additional ahi would be caught each year in local waters to freshen the gene pool of the Q captured broodstock. The 12-inch, 5-pound fingexlings will be transferred by vessel to the Oceanspheres, and grown to 100-pound harvest size using dry fish feed through automated feed dispensers. 10 ~Q ~d The land base for operations and maintenance equipment, vessels, and staff will be Kawaihae Commercial Haxbox. Tuna will be harvested at sea fox transshipping through Kawaihae ox Hilo Harbor to existing processing and packaging vendors fox air freight to US mainland, Japan, and Hawau markets. Significant Beneficial and Adverse Effects The direct beneficial effects of the proposed action are added revenue Co the local economy; tuna processing, boat operators and shipping industries. Positive effects also include relieving anthropogenic pressure on dangerously overexploited species of tunas and a new sustainable supp]}' of fresh tuna for the local population. Proposed Mitigation Measures Project design without anchors ox loose nets, located in 1,320-feet deep waters, 2.6- nm From shore will trudgate potential adverse impacts on water quality, biological, cultural, recreational and visual resources. On-going water quality monitoring, and management plans for marine mammals, sea turtles, and sharks will ensure regulatory compliance. Additional mitigation measures will be developed during project planning and incorporated into design and construction. Environmental impacts are mitigated through proper biology and wildlife best management O practices. Marine Mammal Management Plan, Shark Management Plan, Endangered Species Management Plan and Emergency Management Plan will developed with US-NMFS and DLNR-DAR and be on the worksite and available Eox inspection. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement i Alternatives Considered Sheet Alternate actions considered in this DEIS include the Alternative 2 site for open ocean aquacul[ure, located 2.6 nm offshore Keahole Point, and Alternative 3: no action. Unresolved Issues "There are no unresolved issues drat have not been addressed in the DEIS. There axe pending permits and approvals. Compatibility with Land Use Plans and Policies Aquacultuxe operation is consistent land use with the State Plan, the Agriculture Functional e Plan, and the Conservation Lands Functional Plan. It is a permissible use of this' Resource Subzone of Conservation land. The land base for operations is in Kawaihae Commercial Harbor for either the Proposed Action site, or the Alternative 2 site. This will be on leased land at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. r1ll proposed land uses at the base are commercial ~ operations and are consistent with Kawaihae Commercial Harbor requirements. The Region of Influence (ROI) for the entire operation is the project's proposed ocean lease area itself, as well as the leased land at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. Listing of Permits or Approvals 1'he permits required for dais project include 1. US Army Corps of Engineers: Department of Army Permit under Section 10 of die Rivers and Harbors Act 2. US Coast Guard: Special Use Permit Q 3. DLNR/OCCL: State Conservation District Use Permit 4. DOH: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit & Zone of Mincing Permit J. DLNR/DOA: Aquaculture License Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement ii O 0 O O O i0 O 10 10 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY SHEET (ABSTRACT) ...................................................................................................... I 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Site Overview and Background .............................................................. .................. 1-1 1.1.1 Identification of Applicant ........................................................... ..................1-2 1.1.2 Identification of Accepting Authority .......................................... ..................1-2 1.1.3 Project Summary ....................................................................... ..................1-2 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................. ..................1-3 1.3 Scope of Analysis .................................................................................. ..................1-4 1.4 Description of the Proposed Action ....................................................... .................. 1-4 1.5 Alternatives Analysis .............................................................................. ................1-18 1.5.1 Alternative 2 ................................................................................ ................1-21 1.5.2 Alternative 3 ................................................................................ ................1-21 1.6 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................... ................1-21 2. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................... .................2-1 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. ................ 2-1 2.1.1 Environmental Consequences ..................................................... ................2-2 2.1.2 Terminology ................................................................................. ................2-2 2.1.3 Summary of Impacts .................................................................... ................2-3 2.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ....................................................... ................2-4 2.1.5 Summary of Cumulative Impacts on Resources .......................... ................2-6 2.1.6 Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses ............................ ..............2-15 2.1.7 Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources ............. ..............2-15 2.2 Geology, Sediments, Soils and Topography ............................................ ..............2-17 2.2.1 Affected Environment .................................................................. ..............2-17 2.2.2 Impact Analysis ........................................................................... ..............2-22 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics ......................................................................... ..............2-25 2.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................. ..............2-25 2.3.2 Impact Analysis ........................................................................... .............. 2-28 2.4 WaterOuality ........................................................................................... ..............2-32 2.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................. ..............2-32 2.4.2 Environmental lmpacts ................................................................ ..............2-39 2.5 Biological Resources ............................................................................... ..............2-45 2.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................................. ..............2-45 2.5.2 Environmental Consequence ....................................................... .............. 2-55 2.6 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ......................'...................................... ..............2-70 2.6.1 Affected Environment .................................................................. ..............2-70 2.6.2 Impact Analysis .......................................................................... ............... 2-71 2.7 Traffic and Transportation ....................................................................... ...............2-74 2.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. ...............2-74 2.7.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................... ...............2-77 2.8 AirOuality ............................................................................................... ...............2-82 2.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. ...............2-82 2.8.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................... ...............2-86 2.9 Socioeconomic Conditions ..................................................................... ............... 2-88 2.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. ...............2-88 2.9.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................... ...............2-92 O Hawaii Oceanic TechnologyAhi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmentallmpact Statement iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 2.10 Emergency Services and Human Health and Safety ...................................... .......2-95 2.10.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................... .......2-95 2.10.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................. ....... 2-97 2.11 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... .....2-100 2.11.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................... .....2-100 2.11.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................. ....2-124 2.12 AlternativesAnalysis .......................................................................................... .....2-133 2.12.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................... .....2-133 2.12.2 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................. ....2-135 3. CONFORMANCE WITH PUBLIC PLANS AND POLICES .................................................. ........3-1 3.1 Relationship to State Statutes, Plans and Polices ........................................... ........3-1 3.1.1 Chapter 343 of the HRS ........................................................................ ........ 3-1 3.1.2 State Land Use Law, Chapter 205 HRS ................................................ ........3-1 3.1.3 Hawaii State Plan .................................................................................. ........3-1 3.1.4 Hawaii State Functional Plans .............................................................. ........3-4 3.2 Relationship to County Statutes, Plans and Policies ........................................ ........3-5 3.2.1 Hawaii County General Plan ................................................................. ........3-5 3.2.2 North Kohala Community Development Plan ........................................ ........3-5 3.2.3 Hawaii County Zoning ........................................................................... ........3-7 3.2.4 Hawaii County Special Management Area ............................................ ........ 3-7 3.3 Permits Required ............................................................................................. ........3-7 4. OTHER REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES .......................................... ........4-1 4.1 Relationship to County Statutes, Plans and Policies ........................................ ........4-1 4.2 PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH COULD NOT BE AVOIDED ......... ........4-1 4.3 SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES ......................................................... ........4-2 4.4 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses ................................................. ........4-2 4.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ........4-2 4.6 Agency Consultation ........................................................................................ ........4-2 4.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................................ ........4-2 5.' REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ ........ 5-1 6.. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................ ........6-1 e Q O 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement iv O 0 O O O O O O O TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Paae LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Proposed Action Map: Malae Point.00A Site ...................................... 1-2 Kawaihae Commercial Harbor .............................................................. 1-3 Map of Lease Area ................................................................................ 1-4 GPS Navigation ..................................................................................... 1.5 Open Aquaculture Platform Schematic ................................................. 1-6 Scaled Drawing of Oceansphere in Watercolum .................................. 1-7 Open Ocean Oceanspheres Artist's Rendering ................................... 1-8 Diagram of Persistent Ocean Power .................................................... 1-9 Central Stem Diagram .......................................................................... 1-10 Map of Alternative 2 Keahole Point ....................................................... 1-11 Detailed Map of Alternative 2 ................................................................ 2.2-1 Geology of Hawai'i ................................................................................ 2.2-2 USCG Undersea Topography ............................................................... 2.2-3 Seabed geology off the northwestern coast of the Island of Hawai'i.... 2.2-4 Photo of pillow lava on slopes of Hawaii Island .................................... 2.3-1 Land Use Designations for Kawaihae Harbor ...................................... 2.4-1 Seasonal average of the surface mixed layer depth ............................ 2.4-2 Average Surface Flow ........................................................................... 2.5-1 Movement of aSatellite-Tagged Green Turtle ...................................... 2.7-1 Number of Vessels in Ocean Lease Site .............................................. 2.7-2 Number of Vessels w/in three miles ..................................................... 2.8-1 Energy capital ependiture analysis ....................................................... 2.8-2 Air Quality Monitoring Stations .............................................................. 2.10-1 Map Showing Number of Shark Incidents by Island, 1900-2004 ......... 1-6 1-7 .......1-12 1-14 .......1-20 ...2-18 .....2-19 ......2-21 ......2-22 _......2-26 o_~e Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.I1-1 Summary of Potential Impacts of Implementing Ahi Aquaculture Project and the No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................... ...........2-4 2.~I1-2 Cumulative Projects ..........................................................................................._........... ...........2-5 2.2-1 Summary of Potential Geological, Sediments, Soils, or Topographic Impacts .............. .........2-23 2.3-1 Summary of Potential Impacts on Land Use and Existing Activities .............................. .........2-29 2.4-1a 1 Water Quality Parameters at Malae Point Site (n=2) ...................................................... .........2-35 2. 4-1 b Water Quality Parameters at Control Site (n=2) ............................................................. .........2-35 2.14-2 Comparison of State Standards with Modeled Farming Activity Effluent ....................... .........2-38 2.i4-3 Summary of Potential Water Quality Impacts ................................................................. .........2-40 2.5-1 Summary of Potential Biological Resource Impacts ....................................................... .........2-57 2.6-1 Summary of Potential Impacts from Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ..... .........2-72 2.I7-1 Summary of Potential Traffic and Transportation Impacts ............................................. .........2-78 2.8-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for US EPA Criteria Air Pollutants ................................. .........2-85 2.8-2 Summary of Potential Air Quality Impacts ...................................................................... .........2-87 2.9-1 Population Trends for the State and County ................................................................... .........2-89 2.9-2 Economic Indicators for Hawaii County ......................................................................... .........2-90 2.9-3 Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status for Hawaii County, State of Hawaii, and the 1 United States (2005) ....................................................................................................... .........2-91 2. 9-4 Summary of Potential Socioeconomic Impacts .............................................................. .........2-93 2.~I10-1 Summary of Potential Emergency Management Impacts .............................................. .........2-98 2.112-1 Summary of Potential Cultural Resource Impacts ..............................................:........... .......2-126 2.112-2 Summary of Potential Impacts Alternatives .................................................................... .......2-135 4-.1 Public and Agency Outreach Events .............................................................................. ...........4-4 LIST OF APPENDICES Alppendix A User and Vessel Surveys B Current Study Report C Cutural Impact Assessment Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement vi 0 LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Full Phrase O AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act APE area of potential effects ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act ATI area of traditional importance CDUA Conservation District Use Application Q CE CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental response, Compensation, and Liability Act CII Cates International, Inc. CWA Clean \X/atex Act CZM Coastal "Lone Management DBEDT Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources DOBOR Division oEBoating and Ocean Recreation DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Education DPS dynamically positioning system EA environmental assessment ~ EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act FADS fish aggregation devices PH\\1A Federal I-Iighway Administration GPS global positioning system O HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern I-IAR FIawai`I Administrative Rules HDEBDT Hawaii Department oEBusiness Economic Development HDOE Flawai`i Department of Education HDOH Hawaii Department of I-Iealth HDOH C\Y/B I-IDOH Clean \~ater Branch ~ I-IDOT Hawaii Department of'1'ransportation HELCO Hawaiian Electric and Ligh[ Company HIH\\~NMS Hawaiian Islands Humpback VC~hale National Marine Sanctuary HIMB Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology I-IRS Hawaii Revised Statutes INS Inertial Navigation System ~ KBWF Kona Blue \Y/ater Farm LOS level of service LST/LSV Level of service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MHI Main Hawaiian Islands MMPA Maxine Mammal Protection Act ~ MMS Minerals Management Service MP Monitoring plan NAGPI2r1 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NELHA Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authoriiv~ NHPi1 National Preservation Historic Act NMPS National Marine Fishery Services ® NMS National Maxine Sanctuary NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination S}'stem O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Drat Environmental Impact Statement vii LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Full Phrase NPP Net primary productivity NPS National Park Sen~ice NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSMBHSP National Seafloox Mapping and Benthic Habitat Studies Project NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands OHA Office of Hawaiian Affairs OOA open ocean aquaculture OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration O"fEC PACRC Pacific Aquaculture & Coastal Resources Center PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PIRG Pacific Island Regional Office POP Persistent Oceanic Power ROI Region of Influence ROV Submersible-supported research vessel SCUBA Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus SML surface mixed layer TCP traditional cultural places/properties TSS total suspended solids US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers USCG United States Coast Guard USEWS US Fish and WIldGfe Service USGS United States Geological Survey "LOM Zonc of Mixing 0 0 0 CHAPTER 1 ca INTRODUCTION This environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates Hawaii Oceanic Technology's proposal to raise yellowfin tuna (Thunnur albacarer) and bigeye tuna (Thunnur oberur) in submerged ~ aquaculture platforms, which are termed "Oceansphere", three miles (2.6 nautical miles (nm)) offshore Malae Point, North Kohala on the Island of Hawaii. "Phis EIS has been developed in accordance with Hawai`i's environmental impact statement law (Hawai`i Revised Statutes [HRS] 343). The purpose of the EIS is to inform decision makers and the public of the likely environmental consequences of the proposed action. It focuses on site- ~ specific issues of the project and the impacts on the Island of Hawaii. 7.7 SITE OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND Hawaii Oceanic Technology intends to raise 6,000 tons (5,443 metric tonnes) per year of yellowfin tuna (Thunnur albacareJj and/or bigeye tuna (Tbunnue' obe.ru.r) in an open ocean Q location 2.6 nautical miles (4.2 kilometers) offshore Malae Point, North Kohala, segregated by species in twelve submerged Oceansphexes when fully operational by 2013. Both of these species are referred to as ~1hi by the local Hawaii community. Fingerlings will be grown out from eggs collected Erom broodstock caught in coastal waters oEE the Island of Hawaii and will be supplied in collaboration with the Pacifrc Aquacultuxe & Coastal Resources Center O (PACRC). Each Oceansphexe will be fitted wide an automated feed dispenser. The tuna will be hatched at PACRC and grown to Oceansphere transferable size in land-based tanks. The tuna will be [ransferred by a vessel to the open ocean Oceanspheres when diet' arc approximately 12 inches in length and 5 pounds in weight, and will be grown to approximately one hundred pounds in size. The tuna will be harvested at sea for O transshipping through Hilo Harbor and Kawaihae Harbor, to processing and packaging vendors Eor shipping by au to the US mainland, Japan, and Hawaii markets. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-1 1. Introduction 1.1.1 Identification of Applicant The applicant is Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. The primary contact and authorized representative for doe Hawaii Oceanic Technology is BIl] Spencer, Chief Fiecutlve Officer of Hawaii Oceanic Technology. Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. 425 South Street, Suite 2902 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: 808-225-3579 Fax:808-528-4751 u-1vw.kingahi.com 1.1.2 Identification of Accepting Authority The accepting authority for the Proposed Action is the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). The primary contact is Laura Thielen, Chairperson. Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Kalanimoku Building 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: 808-587-0377 Fax:808-587-0390 1.1.3 Project Summary Project Name: AI>i Aquaculmre Project Location~,r): State Marine Waters off of the North Kohala Coast, approximately three miles (2.6 nautical miles) due southwest of Malae Point (20"05'40.00" N 155°55'40.00" y~. The four corners are located at 20"05'53.72" N 155°55'55.68" W; 20°05'53.72" N 155°55'24.36" W; 20°05'26.04" N 155°55'24.36" W; and 20°05'26.04" Ni 155°55'55.68" W. ]udieial lli,rtrict. Appk~cant Recorded Fee Owner. Land (Ocean~Ama: F.ritting Use: State Land U.re: Subtione: Marine Water Clam: Marine Bottom Erory.rtem: Count~~ General Pkrn I I1PAG: County Toning: Spedal Management Area: ActeJ~ting Authority: North Kohala Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. State of [-Iawai`i 247 acres (1.0 sq lon) (Proposed Action) Conservation Conservation Resource A II Ocean site has no LUPAG designation Ocean site has no County zoning Ocean site is not in SMA Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Project -Draft E C E 0 ~~ ~9 ~~ 10 ~0 O 1. Introduction 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed action is to meet the high demand for fish b}' providing a sustainable source of high quality, pure, clean runa using Open Ocean Aquaculture (OOA). It has been reported that populations of large predatory fish in Hawaiian waters and the global ocean, including tuna, have been reduced to 90 percent of pre-industrial levels and that populations of exploited fish are predicted to vanish by 2048 (R. A. Myers and B. Worm 2003). Although these findings have been challenged (Hampton et al. 2005), world tuna catches axe declining (FAO 2007), even in the face of increasing worldwide fishing efforts (Hilo Fisherman Robert Cabos pers. comm. 2007). The primar}' markets Eox Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi will be California and Japan, with a portion of the product being sold into the Hawaii market. Current demand for yellowEin and bigeye tuna is these three markets contributes to the fishing pressure on the natural stocks. Hawaii has a market of about 3,307 tons (3,000 metric tonnes) per year, where nearly 10.03 tons (9.1 metric tonnes) are consumed during the Christmas and New Year holidays. Through Open Ocean Aquaculrure (OOr1), Flawai Oceanic Technology will provide a viable alternative source for yellowfin and bigeye tuna for local and export markets, as well as strengthen and diversify the I-Iawai'i economy. With the world's high demand for tuna and current industrial fishing techniques, stocks of yellowfin and bigeye runa are being harvested at unsustainable rates. 'The Japan market fox sashimi-grade tuna is approaching 694,456 tons (630,000 metric tonnes) per year, and California and other metropolitan areas in the United States consume 49,604 tons (45,000 metric tonnes) per year. Depletion of other fish stocks has had direct market effects; in the case of swordfish, more than 1,000 US mainland restaurants have stopped serving swordfish dishes because of its scazciry. The growing sensitivity to diminishing ocean resources and the desire for a quality product underscore the need to provide an alternative source of tuna. The future of global seafood production will likely rely on OOA, which has a number of advantages over traditional methods of aquaculrure. By designing their 00A project using green technology, Hawaii Oceanic Technology will produce a high-quality, high-grade sustainable source of protein in an environmentally sensitive manner and grown in the deep ocean waters on the ]ee side of the island of Hawaii. A high tech aquaculrure system will be developed Cha[ produces a superior product by raising fish from hatchling to ready-to- market product under controlled conditions of feeding and harvesting. Project design will allow for maintaining water quality, with high dilution of effluent through natural circulation in deep ocean waters, use of organic feeds, recycling of metabolic products, and use of renewable/thermal energy fox power needs. The State of Hawaii has the largest jurisdictional area of internal waters in the US and is one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the world. I[ has 200,000 square miles of open ocean in its EEZ and is a known leader in aquaculmre and ocean science technologies. United States Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, on a December 2006 visit to aquaculture projects on the Island of Hawaii, declared it to be the "Silicon Valley of aquaculmre" in the United States. The resources to develop the tuna farming system do exist and are available in these waters. The Kohala Coast of the Island of Hawaii is an excellent location for offshore aquaculrure activities. It is a major agricultural region of the O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Drafr Environmental Impact Statement 1-3 1. Introduction C state, and the area is shielded from the prevailing North Pacific Equatorial Current and the Northwest Txadewinds by Mauna Loa, Mau a Kea, and the Kohala Mountains and Hualalai. Open ocean oligotxophic waters axe const ntl}' being supplied b}' the prevailing currents from the south (Hawai`i State GIS, see app ndix), and the waters become very deep close to shore, leading to ideal conditions for the ~ ~ng and recycling of waste. 1.3 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS This EIS has been developed in accordane with Hawai`i's environmental impact statement law (HRS 343) and with guidance from the Office of Envuonmcntal Quality Control (OEQQ. Its purpose is to inform decision akers and the public of the likely environmental consequences of the proposed action. This EIS identifies, documents, and evah Aquaculture Project. An interdisciplina planners, econotnists, engineers, and arch. of existing conditions and has identified with the proposed action. The preferred 1.4. A description of an alternative site s 1.5. Conditions existing as of 2006 and 2( described in Section 2.0, Affected Env action, cumulative actions, and no action for those effects, are described in Section s the effects associated with the proposed Ahi team of environmental scientists, biologists, logists has anal}'zed the proposed action in light evant beneficial and adverse effects associated of the proposed action is described in Section a no action alternative are described in Section considered to be the "baseline" conditions, are rment. The expected effects of the proposed rnative, along with possible mitigation measures Environmental Consequences. 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION This section describes the proposed acti n with the preferred site. Following this is a section that evaluates the alternative sit and a no action alternative. The anticipated determination for the proposed action is a imding of no significant impact. Hawaii Oceanic Technology intends to raise 6,000 tons 0,443 metric tonnes) per year of yellowfm tuna and bigeye tuna in a one sq are kilometer ocean lease site located 2.6 nautical miles (4.2 kilometers) offshore Malae Poi [, North Kohala, segregated by species in twelve submerged Oceanspheres when fully open tional by 2013. Both of these species are referred to as .1hi by the local Hawaii community'. Fingerlings will be grown out from eggs collected from broodstock caught in coastal waters off the Island of Hawaii and will be supplied in collaboration with the Pacific rlquacultulxe & Coastal Resources Center (I'ACRQ. F_ach Oceansphexe will be fitted with an autos[lated feed dispenser. The tuna will be hatched at PACRC and grown to Oceansphere trans enable size in land-based tanks. The tuna will be transferred by a vessel to the open ocea~ Oceanspheres when they axe approximately 12 inches in length and 5 pounds in weight, hand will be grown to approximately one hundred pounds in size. The tuna will be harvested at sea for transshipping through I-Iilo Haxbox and Kawaihae Haxbox, to processing and p ckaging vendors for shipping by air to the US mainland, Japan, and Hawaii markets. The proposed action is planned as an incr mental deployment of twelve Oceanspheres. One will be deployed in year one, two will be eployed in year two, four will be deployed in year three and five will be deployed in year fo r for a total of twelve Oceanspheres in operation by year five. Oceansphexes will be depl yeti using careful observation and monitoring to ensure compliance with environmental stlndards, especially water quality. Final deployment Oceanic Technology - uratt tnvironmenrar rmpacr 1-4 C 0 1. Introduction will culminate in all twelve Oceanspheres being evenly distributed in the lease site. The water depth at the site is 1,320 feet (402.34 meters); the top of the Oceanspheres will be held at a d depth of 65 feet (20 meters) below the water surface. Project Location for Proposed Action - Malae Point (Preferred Alternative) The Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Ayuaculture Project proposes to operate from an ocean lease site based three miles (2.6 nautical miles (nm)) offshore Malae Point in North ~ Kohala (See Figure 1-1), and a commercial site leased Eor the company's operations base at Kawaihae Commercial Hatbox (See Figure 1-2). The one square kilometer open ocean aquaculture site is in waters with a depth of 1,320 feet (402.34 meters). The harvested fish will be transported from the ocean site by boat directly to Hilo Harbor fish packing facilities or Kawaihae Commercial Haxboc for trans-shipment by truck m Kona ~ Fish Company, or other fish processing operation in Kona, and on to Kona International Airport Feed storage and feed transport to the feed boat will take place from Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. Hawaii Oceanic Technologry will lease a commercial lot at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. ~ The sire will include the following: • An office; • A large fenced-in area for storing OOA tools and equipment; ~ • A small communications station; • Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) equipment storage; • An air compressor for SCUBA tanks; and ~ • Fish feed storage. Three tracks used fox transportation and maintenance, and three 35-foot work boats equipped with two large outboard engines (i.e. 150 hp) each and trailers will be parked at the site. Additional boats will be contracted as needed from local fisherman and salvage companies (i.e. Chuck Wilson, I^ire FIatt, Kailua Kona and Hawaiian Interisland Towing ~ Inc, Pier 21, Honolulu HI 96813). O ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 1. Introduction Figure 1-1. Proposed Action: Preferred OOA Site 1 Malae Point. Map of proposed Open Ocean 1lquacukure Site (blue region) and the I-lampback Whale Marine Sanctuary (purple region). The ayuacnlture site is 2.6 ^aurical miles due southwest of Malae Point. The center of the Ocean Lease Site is 20"05'40.00" N 155°55'40.00"Wand the water depth is 1,320 Eeet (40234 meters) (Map taken from NOAA 1-llHw/NI~S website). ~l,~ _ r~ l\ I4J ~ ~_ 1 l~~ • ~ t ~ x~ ~ ~+ ~ro ''~ r OOA Site 1 '~ ~',4°'. 247 acres ! 1 4y 7]7 _ ..` 3+_~ !II `9 / f7/ > >~ ,`~ 731 \ .._;V.y ~ fat .,l ~• ~~ w `~~ ~1 m .~.... .... 'e ~ ., S an .=, ,.w .ta^ e~ -...~I't~#`4~ 'fit' [, \ lr ~ 'A `` , ~+! ~ in ~ :. .' A ~.' ' m 1 •~~_ -~____. V 1 ' is fia I iv ~> ~ ma 7b '^ u31 ~ `, ~ 't` iu ~'~ n>r~...~., - x s • ~ rrd. \\\ aaea nv \ C F E Aquaculture Project -Draft E O 1. Introduction Figure 1-2. Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. Kawaihae Commercial Harbor has 23 boats moored with their own tackle in the commercial 0 deep-draft harbor, two Tahiti-st}'le moorings, a container loading area, a container lot, and a loading pier. O O Q ~~ ~~ ~~ Q 1t ~`~'~ ry3 ~ S1G~ ~ 4 r I~JY ~ 1~~ ~ t~, I r~ 1~~2 /1i.~! M..'~ij T ')~"( ~ 1 ~ . f~~t 1 l 1~ i1 i~ 'A ,"Fj;~ x~ilr ~, •I` r. ~~ ( i 8t.~y.L~ 41 ~~ ~I~~ {'Si ~ ')~ y ~ 'r' ~ 11 ~ t ~. •c.i~ ~ tel. 11~ r t t ,,.~ ~ f m yip ~ W +, 1 yx /{~ ~ 3 r ~~° < fi P' '~ Tr L / ^1 ~ :. ..^K Y Liu C r ;" ~r I ~:. i + ti 4 I ~ 1 ~ I /.I r w 1 -~~l I ~t ~ti i ~- ~ k • ~ • 7 ~ ,,, I ~.:~: f ~> ~ 1 , r ?~ ~?(?" -' ., ~ , '~ ~ti"~ tir Y,.' ;.. ~~. `I ` ~ ~ .r 'til K _Z tip,} ~ r ~~ I ~ s- ' r "_ r ~ ~-^ t , ' ..~ stir ~' ~~ - y~n ~'~-iY t`~~ ~ ~ .. ~~ _ L L `-4t ~ )>) ( ^~r (~ ! ~ ~ ! 4.. ' ' t i 7 2 t ;w C~ ~ . A . ~ ~~~ ~ ~L~~ ~ '~ ~1 ~tiy `. ~. . ~ ~Z`I Y r .. tiv n r ~ [ `C". Y ~ t. ~~l~ ~l '~ , ~ ~ 4 _,; i, ~~ ~ '., _ , ~ ~,' . , I { '~t ~ ,''~; r t Y '`- .ct i y~~ i`l'I~` Vim- iii f ~` ~ x' l .1„ . _ • M C ~ '~ `Kawaihae H arboi`~~ 1' ~l t~~ -'''t'.i z 1 ~i , > , ~ ti, ~4 ~,,,` , . ~ _, . ti u» T" Y ! Y s w l I ``y~' ~ t~ - 1 ~ <Z ~[ i~ / Y ~ )I. ~~ ~ ~ ~ l T !~% I C I ~ ~ 1 rl~ ~ ~ 19 ' ~7~ ~ ~\~f r I ~~ ~~ u~i .'~ 7i '_ti ~ ~ P ~ ' t ~ ~ T MY~A1 Nom: ~ l 1 'r ,~ ~ t ~. ; r / f~ _ ~' ~ ` ~ !'" ~ ~ ~ ;' ~l ~ d' ~ t, t N ,. ' ~ ~ r ~ L ~; C • ~~ _ s 7 4i ,t ~ r°~ ~~ _ ... ,. ~~ ~~ ~I A ~ ~ , a -+' ~ ~ ~ Y t s~ S i r i ~ ' 0 025 .0.5 _~ p v~ ~~f C ~ j 'j,. ~ s '' j ~ ~ ~ J { ~ ~ i I ~ r ~ (~ i J% ~°~ ~Y Y 9 «ii ~ L ~ ? ~ f .: 5 O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 Introduction The proposed location of the open ocean Oceanspheces is off the North Kohala Coast of the Island of Hawaii. The Oceanspheres will be three miles offshore and will be outside the Hawaiian islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (I-IIHWNMS), shown in purple in Figure 1-]. The area proposed for leasing is 247 acres (].0 squace kilometers) and will contain 72 Oceanspheres, which will produce 6,000 tons oEAhi per pear. Final deployment will culminate after five pears with all twelve Oceanspheres being evenly distributed in the ]ease site, as shown in Figure 1-3. The water depth at the site is 7,320 feet (402.34 meters); the top of the Oceanspheres will be held at a depth of 65 feet (20 meters) below the water surface. Figure 1-3. Map of the Proposed Action at Preferred OOA Site 1. The proposed lease site is cencered at 20°OS' 40.00" N 155°55' 40.00" W, shown here with spacing of twelve Oceanspheres within the ocean lease site to maximize mixing. 155" S~ 40.I:N1" \h 24'! Acre Ucean Lease Area I --------------t------------------ N i 20 S' S3, l2" N ~ 3U• ~ 53.7?" N I ~ 155" SS 15.68" W ~ 155" „' za 5~" ~~~ 1 I I ~y i ~ i i 2.6 nm to i ~\lalae Point I ~ I j I I I I i I '~ I i 5' 40.00" N ~ I __.._.__..._...__.J.__.__...__._..._...__._.___._...~.._.__...-----.__...__._.__..._~._ lOClll rn _ i ~, j i 3;81 feet _-.._.... i i ~ ~ I ~ i I 1,320 feet eater depth i I ~ I ~ I j I I I I 121}' S' 26.(_14" t\ - ~0° 5' 26.04" N 155° 5~ 55.(8" 1V' ~ 155" ~9 24.36" \V ~ 10(10 m ~ 3,2£31 feet Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Drag Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 E C E Q O O 1. Introduction Operations Operations for the FIawaii Oceanic Technolog}' ~1hi Aquaculture Project include feeding, Q maintenance, and harvesting activities, as described below. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will provide at least 22 full-time equivalent jobs by year five, with an average salary of $51,500. Kawaihae Commercial Harbor, will house 22 employees which are; Site Manager, 3 Oceansphere operators, Operations Coordinator, 5 Seaman, 3 Biologist, 4 Divers and 5 ~ L.aborcrs. Additionally, I-Iawaii Oceanic Technology activities will provide the marine community with contracts for salvage, transportation, Oceansphcre maintenance, and boat leasing. Hawaii Oceanic Technology will follow best management practices in the operation of [his project. ~ Oceansphere Description The Oceanspheres will be self-contained spheres and will not have any shop surfaces or dangling lines to entangle wildlife ox interfere with navigation or fishing. Each cage volume is 82,406 cubic meters, stocking density is 1 fish per 4 cubic meters and the single cage production is estimated at 1,000 tons of Ahi per year. The Oceansphexes will be composed of an anodized alutninum frame covered in taut, anti-fouling netting. The netting is one- O squue-inch stitching made from 0.08-inch- (0.002-meter-) diameter Kevlar manufactured by Diamond Nets, Everson, WA. The soft, torque free braided construction of the netting provides easy handling. The Oceanspheres will be untethexed to the ocean bottom, with a dynamic positioning system (DPS) that keeps the Oceansphere on station using computer automated control employing both satellite global positioning systems (GPS)/Inertial O Navigation Systems (INS) and 24/7 ]and-based radio telemetry control (Figure 1-4). The propulsion system includes a Persistent Oceanic Power (POP) patent application USPTO 11/849,338) generator and duplicated x,y,z tunnel electric thrusters that will be used to position the Oceansphere (Figures 1-4 and 1-5). Figure 1-6 is a scaled drawing of the Oceansphexe in relation to the water depth at the Proposed Action at Preferred OOA Site 1. The Oceansphexe will be untethexed, dynamically positioned on station using computer automated control employing both onboard satellite GPS/DPS and shore-based radio telemetry. A directed jet stream of water and shielded electric tunnel thrusters located in the central stem will be used to maintain the Oceansphere on station. T'he Persistent Ocean ~ Power (POP) system will provide power for positioning, telemetr}', and autonomous operation. The Oceanspheres are capable of submerging to a preprogrammed depth and sta}'ing on station using GPS/DPS, radio telemetx}' and INS and computer control, shown below. The Oceanspheres have broadcast radio identification tags. ~~ ~~ O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Drag Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 1. Introduction ~ Figure 1-4 - GPS/Inertial Navigation System 6P~ Sateiite C ~~ saCt*lite Mink 'O~ ~ ' ~, ..- ~.. fi. ~~ / P ~ 'P9 ~..~ r lSatel*Ge Li r:k `~~ J i2ac3io T+~A~m~rsy i t,. Itada Cantcal SCatiatt e Figure 1-5. Oceansphere Schematic ~ aGdle~ TEyNVfELL~ RV6f FAn SEgti3~ A4F[}S"Ii) 1.`-~hC .^ r"` '~i ^ ~ .. +...- .a.. .,/ *_./~..+,..... ,~h~-.mom--"._./'"'- h~.1yr ~ . /r ^, r' ". .q`~ ^ ~'4J~ r '` ,,,~ . » ... ....-. ..,. ,.:/.,.,.- ~./ ~~.- ^"~ I Ii V'cir~+,icuwstic ai°n&E:-.,. ~~ 1 4. t}.j ;;Cui . . & F4)~.lf ~5c.;~KDOktd /T'ran5ti4tCes~ Au~4GI alf Pd ~( ~ , }.~ {iL. ~f'~A ~-^1!£~.~ :{: ~.a.: ~ ,,,,-~' f".:.P1~Z.Plt] F..s. ~ _ iW n:e~l hre;s L+~ea r r ((''~~ ll M1~'~~ ~ ~ ieS ~ i ~ . i -}~ j -4~~~'a ~ ~' RSY. E 'u t t-:YLF Y4 * ntea P': si t7se rf ~ y FY 1@&~k ~V3~fi.-. 1Rfl CZ 3£Il6'Zil Lpt ~ ~, '^~v i 4u7f°i }_S:Q 3. tea "°--. cclt4 'WUeex SRlfer I Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Protect -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 O 0 1. Introduction O 10 10 10 10 Figure 1.6 Scaled drawing of Oceansphere in comparison to the water column depth at the North Kohala Ocean Lease Site. BoCt:om 400 m 10 10 Approximately 7 tuna per year will be caught in waters off the Island of Hawaii and used as broodstock to produce fingerlings from eggs under contract to PACRC in Hilo. The ~ Engerlings will be placed in the holding tank of a ship and transpotted Erom Hilo to the OOA site, where they will be pumped through a hose into the submerged Oceanspheres. Yellow 5n tuna and big eye tuna would be grown in separate Oceanspheres. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 1. Introduction E E Should the propulsion system malfunction the Oceansphere would automatically send a distress signal through the radio telemetry system and remain at depth until salvage crew arrives to retrieve the Oceansphere. The Oceansphere will automatically deplo}° a deep sea anchor to slow drift. If the buoyant}' control system should fail, the Oceansphere is positively buoyant so it would surface on its own for recover}° and repair. IE the propulsion system were to malfunction the backup system would radio and satellite dispatch velocig~, speed, and direction of the Oceansphere to the shore based control station. A salvage ctew would be immediately sent to the distressed Oceansphere. pree drifting "subsurface" floating cages will not likely come ashore as ocean currents diverge at ocean-land margins (Cliff Goudp, NllT Professor, as per. conlnr..). Nso of note the Oceansphere, is mostly an empty structure with less then a 30 % surface area foot print and 70°/~ of the current will ~ pass directly through the mesh. A salvage company will be retaincd~ to retrieve the Oceansphete upon failure. Ba inspecting the average currents in the North Kohala atea (see Appendix C) in a total sasrems failure, in a one knot current, the Oceansphere will most likely move less than one mile per hoot, in a North West direction in a trajectory to eventuall}' pass hundteds of miles south of Oahu. Howevet, the Oceansphere will be recovered within a few hour of failure by the 24/7 dispatch marine salvage company, such as the work boat the "Raved' operating out of Honokohau Hatbor. i ecnnology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Oran Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 Figure 1-7. Open Ocean Oceanspheres Artist's Rendering. O 1. Introduction Propulsion and Power ~ The peopulsio^ and power generation system is similar to a modern diesel electric (D/E power-train) submarine in layout but smaller and more efficient. A hybrid ocean thermal power generator based on a Stirling engine, which we call persistent oceanic power, POP, will replace the diesel engine and maintain banks of batteries that connect to shielded x,y,z reversible tunnel electric thruster for propulsion. POP is a Cacnot efficiency heat sink engine 0 which utilizes the thermal gradient in the upper oceanic water column to efficiently produce electricity in order to charge batteries in a similar way that h~~bcid automobiles use an internal combustion engine to charge batteries which provide power to an electric motor. The Oceansphere is a very good example of a hybrid vehicle. The Oceansphere will can ~ Stirling engines to keep a bank of batteries charged. The batteries power electric motors driving the propellers and control s}~stems. Much the same as a diesel electric train oc submarine, only in this case a Stirling Engine is used instead of a diesel engine because it is highly efficient and can use the ambient ocean thermal energy to help drive the Stirling cycle. The Swedish Na~ry~ have developed Stirling submarine propulsion systems for these same 0 seasons and manufacture the Viking Class Attack Submarine. These are also commercially available marine generators made by WhispecGen in New Zealand, and Marine Stirling in Florida that axe based on seawater cooled Stirling Engines. Ocean water at a temperature of 10 °C will be pumped up from a depth of 200 m to provide O a heat sink for the Stirling cti~cle used to produce electricity to operate the thrusters for the Oceanspheres under average conditions. The up and down vertical motion of waves power is used to assist the cold water to the surface. Internal shielded electric x,y,z tunnel thrusters located in the Ayuasphere stem will dynamically position the Oceansphece. An onboard computes and land to shove network will provide control and monitoring of onboard electronics, navigation control, commurvcations and emergency systems. All power ~ generation and routing will be directed by onboard computers that will monitor and control Oceansphere operations. A gyro inertial system will be employed when satellite communication isn't available to self position the Oceansphece. POP is a closed cycle engine in which the working fluid, an inert gas, is sealed within the ~ engine and not open to the environment. POP utilizes a temperature difference to expand and contract a working gas to move a piston and produce rotary power. The Stirling device converts heat into rotary power by continuous heating and cooling of a captive gas. The device operates on the principle that a gas (in this case helium) expands when heated and contracts when cooled. There are no byproducts of combustion coming into contact with Q the moving parts of the device increasing reliability and reducing maintenance. Heater elements are connected to the cylinders along with heat exchangers. The working gas, which motes back and Forth between the hot piston and the cold piston is connected to heat exchanger where heat is rejected to the cooling system water This action of heating and cooling the helium changes its pressure and exerts a force on the pistons that drive the ~ crankshaft thus turning the enclosed alternator to produce electricity. A diagram of a heat sink engine and Stirling engine operation is shown in Figure 1.8. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 1. Introduction With this power source the Oceansphere can submerge to predetermined depths and communicate with the GPS and other Oceanspheres while submerged. Modern Stirling prime movers are external combustion engines which consistently demonstrate higher C efficiency, multifuel capability, lower exhaust emissions, quieter operation, equivalent power densiq~, and superior torque characteristics than other engines. A number of engine designs are currently commercially available and Stirling Energy Systems manufactures a 25 Kilo Watt Stirling engine. e Figure 1.8 -Diagram of Persistent Ocean Power. POP produces work from a thermodynamic heat sink (left) and employs a Stirling engine cycle to efficientl}~ produce electricity (right). E 0 WORK O ~namic positioning systems A seagoing vessel is subject to the forces of wind, waves and current and those generated b}' the propulsion system. In a dynamic positiorilng system the response to these forces in terms of changes in position, heading and speed, are measured by position-reference systems, gyrocompass and the satellite global positioning system (GPS). The dynamic positioning system calculates the forces- that the thrusters must produce in order to control the vessel's motion. The dynamic positioning systems controller calculates the resulting force to be exerted b}' the thrusters/propellers in order for the vessel to remain on station. High Q Precision dynamic positioning systems control provides high accuracy station-keeping in any weather condition. d - titan cnv~ronmentai Impact Statement 1-14 0 Q 1. Introduction Dynamic positioning (DP) started in the 1960s for offshore drilling. In 1961 the drillship Cuss 1 was fitted with four steexable propellers, in an attempt to drill the first Moho well. It Q was possible to keep the slop in position above the well oEf La Jolla, California, at a depth of 948 meters. After this, off the coast of Guadalupe, Mexico, five holes were drilled, the deepest at 183 m (601 Et) below the sea Iloox in 3,500 m (11,700 ft) of water, while maintaining a position within a radius of 180 meters. The ship's position was determined by radar ranging to buoys and sonar ranging from subsea beacons. Q Whereas the Cuss 1 was kept in position manually, later in the same year Shell launched the drilling ship Eureka that had an analogue control system interfaced with a taut wire, making it the fast true DP ship. While the fast DP ships had analogue controllers and lacked redundancy, since then vast improvements have been made. DP is not only used in the oil Q industry, but on various other types of ships. With the advent of the GPS, dynamic positioning has become widespread with present day applications which include drill ships, cable-laying vessels, crane vessels, cruise ships, diving support vessels, dredgers, maritime research vessels, mine sweepers, Oceansphere supply vessels, rock dumping vessels, survey ships, supply vessels, and shuttle tankers. Q Feeding Ahi require two pounds of dry feed for every pound of wet weight that [hey grow; Eor example, 200 Ibs (90.7 kilograms) of dry feed will be required to grow a 100-1b (45.4 kilograms) tuna. Dry feed will be purchased from a commercial supplier and shipped to O Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. The source of the feed is detertined by the supplier, and I-Iawaii Oceanic Technology will specify the content of the feed and quality standards. The standard composition of the feed is 85 % soy or other protein, 1 % vitamins and 15 % fish meal or oil. The feed will be inspected b}' the Hawaii Department of Agriculture before being accepted. Additionally, Hawaii Oceanic Technology will contract with Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) fish pathologists to inspect feed for the presence of disease pathogens. Ian Birnie Hawaii District Manager for DOT Harbors Division, has been consulted on the projecC and space requirements at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. When fully operational in 2013 the company will require 1,000 tons (900 metric tonnes) of Feed stock per month arriving in 40 containers. This suppl}' will be received at Kawaihae Q Commercial Harbor. The Eeed will be loaded into feeding canisters for shipment to the OOA site. Once on station, empty canisters, located in the central stem of each Oceanspherc, will be replaced. Feed will be dispensed with an automated feed dispenser built into the stem of the aquacultuxe Oceansphere once a day (See Figure 1.9). A crane onboard the feed boat will be used to replace the canisters'. No ground transportation of Q feed is anticipated other than within the Kawaihae Commercial Harbor area. ~Q Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-15 1. Introduction Figure 1.9 -Diagram of stem showing automated feeding dispenser control System Feed Bin Feed "'=-J-~ L Mechanized Mechanized Dispenser Dispenser ALigvot Volume Central Dispensed Feed Thruster _ Water :Tet (360"1 Power Generator Fuel Batteries Souyancy Control System 1 Deep Water Flow Once on station, the food canisters will be transferred into the stem of the Oceanspheres. This will occur twice a month during maintenance acdviues and will take approximately four hours. The company is forging parmexships with local farmers to reduce the need for acquiring feed from outside Hawaii by supplementing the fish-based feed stock with a byproduct of bio-diesel production which is algal protein. SCUBA divers will periodically observe and record Feeding behavior, and video monitoring of feeding will be conducted remotely, and this information will be used to maximize the feeding efficiency. Oceansohere Maintenance and Tuna Health /ns,oections SCUBA divers will be deployed ahnost daily to inspect the health of the tuna, and observe the feeding of tuna. Unmanned underwater robots will be used to remove mortalities. Estimated cumulative mortality is expected to be 1%. Oceanspheres being serviced will be raised to the surface before divers will begin their work. Maintenance will take place once a month and is expected to take approximately four hours. Once maintenance is completed, the Oceanspheres will be sent back to their original depth of 154 feet (47 meters), with the top at 65 feet depth (20 meters). Workers will visit the site every work day to maintain Oceanspheres and to supervise delivery of Eeed. SCUBA divers will be deployed while workers maintain the Oceanspheres. Hawaii Hn~ .vquacwture Nro~ect - C e e fi 1-16 ~ O 1. Introduction Ongoing fish health will be monitored through a contxac[ with Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) fish pathologists. Any fish mortalities retrieved from the Oceansphexe will O be sent to HIMB to determine the cause of death. HIMB biologists axe not expected to visit the Oceanspheres. HOT is committed to producing organic grade tuna. To maintain optimal health, the Oceansphere allows for a generous stocking density and access to plenty of clean pathogen fee seawater. The tuna will be fed a well balanced and vitamin enriched diet. However, if disease dose show up, the fish will be treated under the guidance of Q Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology pathologist. I-Iawai Oceanic Technology will contract with a third party salvage/emergency team to be on call 24 hours to retrieve Oceanspheres in the event they begin to drift off station (i.e., Chuck Wilson, Fuc Hatt, Kailua-Kona, and Hawaiian Interisland Towing Inc., Pier 21, Q Honolulu, HI 96813. Operators will monitor the position of the Oceansphere 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. If the Oceansphere should encounter difficulty the Coast Guard will be notified by the operator by phone immediately. Periodically, Oceanspheres will be disassembled at the ocean lease site and placed on a ship O for transport to the maintenance site at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor for refitting before being redeployed. Any periodic repairs will take place on site. To dissemble the Oceansphere, the center stem will be attached to a line from an A frame from the work boat. Divers will dissemble the cage by unbolting the individual panels and stacking them on the deck of die work ship. The center stem will then be brought onboard the ship and the cold Q water pipe dissembled. The cage and the cold water pipe are modular design and are easily dissembled at sea. Fishermen are allowed to fish wound the oceanspheres, but not above or below them. For safety reasons, all boaters ace asked to keep 100' from the oceansphere's surface buoy. For liability masons, the public is asked not to swim or SCUBA dive anywhere in the ocean lease area. The surface beacon will be equipped with warning lights and video cameras. If a boat should approach a warning message will be broadcasted to stay 100 feet from the beacon. If the boats continue to approach a work boat will be dispatched from Kawaihae Harbor. Harvesting O Tuna will be harvested from the Oceanspheres at sea by landing the fish onto work boats. The harvested fish will be put on ice onboard and transported to a fish processing center. The fish will be transported to Kawaihae Harbor and transshipped to Kona to an appropriate vendor, such as Kaloko Light Industrial Park, located at 73-4776 Kanalani Street #8, Kallua-Kona, Hawaii. Ox if necessary, the harvested fish could be transported to Hilo Q Harbor and transshipped to Hilo For delivery to wholesalers/distributors fox processing and shipping. I-Iawaii Oceanic Technology's project design includes utilizing existing fish processing operations with approved waste management practices and policies. In addition, the Q company will work with the fish processing companies to so that they can provide its waste stream from fish processing to local companies that will convert the resource into a viable input to livestock feed, as well as a source of feedstock for renewable energy production. Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-17 1. Introduction The byproduct is also viable source of gamma 3 fatty acids for vitamin supplement iodustey and may be utilized for this purpose. By managing the waste in this manner, the company intends chat there will not be any addition of waste to the landfills on the island, or release of this waste stream to receiving waters of the U.S. Current projection is that when fully operational, six vessels will be in harvest mode in any one year with a total production capacity of 6,000 tons. Fish will be harvested after reaching 100 pounds. One Oceansphere will be harvested approximately every month; all Oceanspheres will be harvested once each year when fully deployed in 2013. All Oceanspheres will not be harvested at once, but will be spread out throughout the year so as not to flood the market with product. The Oceanspheres will be stocked in place and grow- out will take approximately one year. Oux annual production schedule is estimated at 1,000 tons by 2011, 3,000 tons by 2012, and 6,000 tons by 2013. A portion of the harvest will be iced and prepared for delivery to wholesalers and distributors on the Islands of Hawaii, O`ahq Maui, and Kauai. Where possible, product will be put on a refrigerated delivery truck and sent to neighboring islands via container barges or the Hawaii Superfexry. The majority of the harvest will be iced and shipped via air freight to wholesalers and distributors on the US mainland and Japan. 1.5 Alternatives Analysis In addition to the Preferred Location for the Proposed Action at the location offshore Malae Point, North Kohala, alternative open ocean aquaculture sites offshore Milolii, Keauhou Harbor and Keahole Point were considered. Of these alternative sites, the one which was the subject of more extensive research and analysis than the other alternatii~es was the Keahole site, which is presented as Alternative Open Ocean Aquaculmre (OOA) Site 2. Each section in Chapter 2 will discuss the resources and potential impacts fox the Proposed Action, as well as for Alternative Site 2, and the Alternative 3 of No Action. A comparison chart is provided in each section of Chapter 2 that compares the alternatives between the Proposed Action, Alternative Site 2 and Alternative 3 (No Action). Section 2.12 provides a compilation of this alternatives analysis. It became clear after continued research, stakeholder meetings, user surveys, public outreach comments, and infra structure considerations, that the Proposed Action at the site off Malae Point in North Kohala was the Preferred Location. "1'he user survey and vessel survey have revealed that the proposed ocean lease site in Kohala experiences comparatively more limited use by [he public, with a relatively low chance of finding a vessel in the proposed ocean lease site during the day. Also, proximity to Kawaihae Commercial Harbor was a strong determining factor in selecting the Preferred Location in North Kohala. 1.5.1 Alternative 2: Alternative OOA Site 2 -Keahole Point Project Location The open ocean aquaculmre site considered as Alternative OOA Site 2, and rejected as the Preferred Location, was off the Nord Kona Coast approximately three miles (2.6 nautical miles) due west of Keahole Point (I^igure 1-10). The land-based support fox every day ocean operations, feed storage and feed transport to feed boats would still take place at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor (Figure 1-2) as described above Eor the Proposed Action. The tiawau uceanic Environmental Impact Statement O 1. Introduction Alternative OOA Site 2 is located outside the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS), shown in purple in Figure ]-10. The area proposed fox ~ leasing is 247 acres (7.0 square kilometers) and will contain ]2 Oceanspheres, which will produce 6,000 tons of Ahi per year. Figure 1-10. Alternative OOA Site 2 Keahole Point. Map of the alternate Open Ocean Aquaculture (OOA) Site 2 (green region) and the Q Humpback Whale Maxine Sanctuax}~ (purple region). The aquaculture site is 2.6 nautical miles due west of Keahole Point. The center of the Ocean Izase Site is 19°43' 39.00" N 156°O6' 30.00"Wand the water depth is 5,800 feet (Map taken from NOAA 1-IIFIWND4S website). O Q O O NFY4etl Mlle• Ys M. a wia Iwm \ 1 ~~ 651 \~. ~ \.~t\ ~e7i~iC~bi3i:~i4viii \\ OA.9\ ~ 1. •iyt'7 ~i0iF iii?i ~'~ ..-•._'R•`.. q0 Y~~\ \7JOt ?i ~J%iiJii:ij .~ \ .e~ n 1 1 \. ~. `~ 61:. t \ \ ` ' •y; ~i ;, • - ...:,_.. ..._ OOA Site 2 ~',~ Sul ,`i `297 acres ~`~ C~ .. \\ ` 2. 6 nm ---, s+'Y•~- ~~_ u.a.`'~ I:YO `\ as da t `I _ ,\ i t ~\ \ •.~ \ \ l ~~ \ Q ,_ _. \ . I.r. .1i • :R ~ 1Y7 . `.n ,,\ `,`\ n ~ ~._. ` . ~~.. . •~•\t ~i p•_/I O xc ,'~ ~~ •`. • , ~ .. , •~ ~~~ i ~ • '~" 923'\ i5rt___.... '~,'.\~ '1 •.\ e6Y \ ` q/ ``\ Y -r.t. ~~ [Y `y l as. w. ~~ ,a,iwes .., , y r` , Y ~ , . _-. ~{ -- ~~ t'N~i i~\\~I •~ 'psi \ i , \ ebniur• \ , ~~~ ~ , Yrt Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Drag Environmental Impact Statement 1-19 1. Introduction C Figure 1-11. Map of Alternate OOA Site 2. Lease site is centered at, 19° 43' 40.00 N 156 ° 06' 29.00"Was shown with spacing of twelve Oceanspheres within of the ocean lease site to maximize mixing. i 1~°43' 40.011" N ~ ~ i +~ r I ~ ~ ~ b:d' ®I 5,800 feet ~{~atcr depth ® ! ~ 19^ 43' 23.00" N ~" ~ 100(1 m 3,281 feet i I 1 SG" Ci 2200" \V 247 r\crc Ocean Lcasc r\rca ~ _~ f Y L ~ 19° 43 ~9.fi~' 1\ i 15f> G' 41.81" \C~ j 19° 43' 23.00" 1 iG" Ci 10.00" \Cr 2.G n~, tt, l:caholc Pt. 1000 m __~ 3,28] feet The Oceanspheres will be evenly distributed in the center of the 247-acre (7.0 square kilometers) site, as shown in Figure 1-11. A]ap of lease area centered at 19°43' 40.00" N 156°06' 29.00" W, with spacing of Oceanspheres within the ocean lease site to maximize miring. The water depth at the site is 5,800 feet (1,768 meter); Oceanspheres will be held at a central depth of 154 feet (47 metets) below the water surface and the top will be 65 feet (20 meters) below the ocean surface. C E c E C e E E rtawan rro~ect - uratt E 0 1. Introduction p Operations Operations for Hawaii Oceanic Technology would be substantially different if the Alternative 2 site were utilized because the Alternative 2 site is significantly farther away from Kawaihae I-Iaxbor than Alternative 1 site. This greater distance would require substantially more fuel and time for the working vessels to reach the Alternative 2 ocean Q lease site. Oceansoheres The design of the Oceanspheres and their distribution within the leased area under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. Feeding Feeding methods and frequency for Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. The greater distance of Alternative 2 site from Kawaihae Harbor would add to the time and cost of feeding operations, as compared with Alternative ], the Proposed Action. O Oceansphere Maintenance and Tuna Health Inspections The Oceansphere maintenance and tuna health inspections for Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. However, the greater distance of Alternative 2 site from Kawaihae Harbor would increase time and costs fox Oceansphexe Maintenance and Tuna Health Inspections Q as compared with Alternative 1, the Proposed Action. Harvesting The harvesting procedures for Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1. However, the greater distance from Kawaihae Harbor would add to the time and cost of feeding operations, as compared with Alternative 1, the Proposed Action. Q 1.5.2 Alternative 3: No Action Under the no action alternative, Hawaii Oceanic Technology would not proceed with the development of the Ahi Aquaculmre Projec[. 1.6 AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A scoping meeting was held with key government agencies, including Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Land Division and Division of Aquatic Resources, Q Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT), Office of Planning, Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program; US Arm}' Corps of Engineers (USAGE); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Pacific Island Regional Office (PIRO), and the Hawaii State Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture Development Program on September 5, 2006. The purpose of the meetings were to present ~ the Hawaii Oceanic Technology's proposed project to relevant federal and state regulatory agencies and to receive input and comments on preparing permit applications, environmental documents, and community outreach plans. Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 1. Introduction Hawaii Oceanic Technology conducted additional meetings with DLNR, Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), and Hawaii Department of Agxiculmxe in Febmary 2007 regarding requirements fox Conservation District Use Applications (CDUAs) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and ocean leases. After substantial research and analysis of alternatives, [he Company convened a second agency scoping meeting on July 16, 2008, to update the participants and seek comment on the preferred alternative fox the proposed action, and the environmental analysis. ~ Participating agencies included Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNK), Land Division and Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT), Office of Planning, Coastal lone Management (C7M) Program; Department of Health, Clean Water Branch; Hawaii State Departnent of Agriculture, Aquaculmre Development Program; US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE); ~ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) Pacific Island Regional Office (PIRO), and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management CouncIl. Consultations with members of the public have taken place including the landowners of the adjacent coastal lands in Kohala, and the kupuna involved in fisheries in the area. These ~ include blonry Richards (Kahua Ranch), Pono von Holt (Ponoholo Ranch), the Ho opai ohana (Kahua and Ponoholo Ranch), Ka ike o Ka~aina (lessee of adjacent ahupua~a parcel), "Lala" La au ('opelu fishermen), Robert Cambra (~opelu fishermen), and Kwanji Fhkuyama (troller, and bottom fish fisherman). In addition, the project team met with community organizations including the \Uest Hawaii Fishery Council, the Kawaihae Local Resource CouncIl, the Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Committee on Environment and Natural e Resources. These organizations included many stakeholders and community members from the area. A complete list of agency and public participants can be found in Figure 4-1. 1:7 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A decision on whether to proceed with the proposed action rests on numerous factors, such as schedule, avallabiliry of funding, and environmental considerations. In addressing environmental considerations, Hawaii Oceanic Technology is guided by several relevant statutes (and their implementing regulations) and Executive Orders that establish standards ~ and provide guidance on environmental and natural resources management and planning. 'These include, but axe not limited to, HRS 343, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Noise Control Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), Executive Order 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards), Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmemal Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), and Executive Order 13045 (Protection of ChIldren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). I{ey proaisions of these statutes and Executive Orders are described in more detail in later sections of this EIS, if necessary to better understand their Q application. ~ Hawao Oceanic Technology Aht Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 O 1. Introduction List of Needed Permits O 1. US Army Corps of Engineers: Department of Axmy Permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and 1-Iarbors Act 2. US Coast Guard: Special Use Permit 3. DLNR/OCCL: State Conservation District Use Permit 4. DOH: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit & Zone of Mixing Permit O 5. DLNR/DOA: Aquacultuxe License ~~ ~~ ~0 ~0 ~~ ~~ O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-23 C E ~~ HAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL c CONSEQUENCES 2.A INTRODUCTION Q This chapter provides an overview of the baseline physical, biological, social, and economic conditions that occur within the region of influence (ROI) of the proposed alternatives and the projected environmental consequences of those alternatives. Only those environmental and socioeconomic conditions relevant to the proposed alternatives are presented, including the following: • Geology, Sediments, Soils, and Topography • Land Use and Aesthetics • \\~ater QualitS~ O • Biological Resources • yX/aste Management • Traffic and Transportation • Air Quality ~ • Socioeconomic Conditions • Emergency Services, Human Health and Safety • Cultural Resources Each section describes the existing resources, methodology used for impact analysis, and factors used to determine the significance of impacts (HRS 343). Impacts are described where they occur for each resource, including both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts are caused by the Ahi Aquaculmxe Project and occur at the same time and place, while indirect impacts are caused by the Ahi Aquaculture Project, but occur later in time or ~ at a distance from the Ahi Aquaculture Project site. Following the summary description of Hawau Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 0 0 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental impacts in Section 2.1.3, Section 2.1.4 discusses whether the Alv Aquacultuxe Project would contribute to cumulative impacts on the evaluated resources. Section 2.1.5 offers a more (~ specific details in a summary of potential cumulative impacts on resources. Section 2.1.6 covers the relationship between local short term uses of the environment and long term productivity. Section 2.1.7 addresses irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Section 2.1.8 discusses probably adverse impacts which cannot be avoided. Section 2.1.9 is a summary of recommended mitigation measures. And Section 2.1.10 is a summary of Q unresolved issues. 2.1.1 Environmental Consequences This chapter evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action of the Ahi Aquaculture Project, the Alternative 2 site, and the no action alternative. This analysis Q includes likely beneficial and adverse impacts on the human environment, including short- texm and long-term impacts, and direct and indirect impacts. The analysis of impacts on resources focuses on environmental issues in proportion to their potential effects. Detailed consideration is given to those resources that have a potential for em~ironmcntal impacts. Intcrpretadon of impacts in [exms of their duration, intensity, and scale axe provided where Q possible. Impacts under the no action alternative are compared against baseline effects of each resource discussed in Chapter 2. Those conditions not affected by the Ahi Aquaculmre Project were not discussed in this evaluation, including weather, climate change, global sea level change, atmospheric chemistrv, air rsaffic, utilities, and public services (other than emergency services) as this Q project will have no impacts on these resources. None of the aspects of the proposed project will introduce additional needs or burden the current carrying capacity of the resources named above within the ROI. Hawaii Oceanic Technology's project design insures that its waste stream will become a viable input to sustainable livestock growth and renewable energy and will not produce green house gases or emissions that may induce changes in Q weather, climate, global sea level changes, or aunosphexic chemistry. Shipping products via air Exeight will utilize existing air freight flights and will not affect the existing air traffic conditions. 2.1.2 Terminology Q To determine whether an impact is signifcanC, it is important to consider the context and intensity of potential impacts (HRS 343). Contest normally refers to the setting, whether local or regional, and intensity refers to the severity and duration of the impact. Also, this EA includes a discussion of the possible conflicts between the Ahi Aquaculmre Project and the objectives of state and local land use plans and politics for the area concerned (FIRS Q 343). Impacts are described by the following levels of significance: • Significant impact; Q • SignifcanC impact but mitigable to less than significant; • Less than significant impact; Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-2 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental • No impact, ox • Beneficial impact. C There may be both adverse and beneficial impacts within a single resource category; for instance, a project could interfere with apre-existing land use such as recreation (an adverse impact), while expanding public access to different recreational resources (a beneficial impact). Where there are adverse and beneficial impacts, bola are described. Mitigation is identified where it may reduce the significance of an impact ~ 2.7.3 Summary of Impacts Bene&cial impacts were identified for socioeconomic conditions. The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 will introduce new oppormnities for economic growth and will increase emplo}'ment opportunities from operational and support activities. No impacts have been E identified for air quality, as the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 will not be altering the current resources and the air quality' in I-Iawai`i is excellent and would not be substantially' affected by this ox any similar action. Less Chan signi&cant impacts were identified Eor geology, sediments, soils and topography, land use and aesthetics, water quality, waste management, traffic, emergency services, and cultural resources. Minor impacts would occur ~ as a result of increased use of facilities and resources. As with most actions, biological resources require sensitive and action-specific consideration and would be continuously monitored and given careful attention. The Proposed Action and Alternative 2, however, are noe expected to cause a significant impact to biological resources. Most cumulative impacts would occur independently of the proposed alternatives, and many O could be mitigated to a less than significant level. The proposed alternatives would not, in any case, cause the significance level to rise above a less than significant status. The no action alternative has been compared to the baseline conditions to equate what O additional effects may result by implementing this alternative over the proposed action. This evaluation concluded that no impacts for any individual resource would be augmented by the execution of the no action alternative. These impacts are discussed in the impacts evaluation included in this chapter, and where appropriate, mitigations are offered. Oceanic stquacurture rroyecr - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-3 O ~ 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental ~ Table 2.1-1 Summary of Potential Impacts of Implementing the Ahi Aquaculture Project Proposed Action, Alternative 2, and the No Action Alternative Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Alternative Geology, Sediments, Soils and Topography O O O O Q Land Use and Aesthetics Q Q O Q Ocean Use O Q Q Q Water Quality Q ~ Q Q Biological Resources Q Q 0 Q O Waste Dtanagement Q Q Q Q Traffic ~ 0 Q Air Quality Q Q Q Q Socioeconomics Q + Q } ~ + Q O Fmergenc}' Sen7ces ~ Q 0 Cultural Resources ~ 0 Q Incases when there would be both beneficial and adverse impacts, both axe shown on this table. None of the significant impacts in the cumulative impacts column axe attributable to the Ahi Aquaculture Project or no action. 0 LEGEND: = Significant impact + = Beneficial impact = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact = Less than significant impact N/.A = Not applicable = No impact ~ 2.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis Cumulative impacts are the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project's incremental impacts when they are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of who carries out the action (HRS 343). For the purposes of this EA, the O temporal boundary of analysis is from approximately 1998 to 2020. Tlus boundary encompasses a range within which data ue reasonably available and forecasts can be reasonably made. The geographic boundaries of analysis vary, depending on the resource and potential effects. For most resources, the analysis area is characterized by the existing harbor facilities on ~ Hawai`i and the off-shore marine environment, where much of the Eocus is on and where most activities would occur. Resources with furtherreaching impacts, such as socioeconomics, axe analyzed with a more regional perspective. The analysis uea is described under each xesoume. Specific projects that axe in proximity to the proposed ocean lease site, Kawaihae Commercial FIarbor, Hilo Commercial Harbor, or arc a comparable project in ~ West Hawaii, which may have the potential to cumulatively affect the resources evaluated for the project axe identified in Table 2.1-2, below. Some resources would be affected by several or all of the described activities, while others could be affected very little or not at all. The o Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 2020 Harbor Master Plan (HDOT 1998) recommends the modifications listed in Table 2.1-2 be made to Hawai`i's harbors by 2020 (projects 1 through 33 below). Table 2.1-2 Cumulative Projects Project E C ~~ .;~`•. I „~,...,,¢' ~~ `~, Gatpttl8.u cP _,1"ct~P'"~'ikti~IlY fYc -..>r R Wrt6in tli~ k'tolCt~ht,• "' ~ ~ i t a'a is ~~ Or cr cas container cargo 1 Picc 1 I4il 1-[ that rith 20 acres 1-IDO"t terminal 2 Pier 3, Kawaihac Commeccial Harbor with 21 acres of cargo curd HDOT Occrscas mntaincr cargo terminal 3 Picr 4, Hilo 1[arhor with 21 acres of enego curd IiDO~P In[cr-lslavd carKO cecmiual 4 Piers 5 and G, Kvwaihae Comme¢ial Harbor with 22 aacs of evrgo yard HDO'I' Fn[utislaud cvrgo renninvl 5 Container berths at Picr 1,1-lilo 1-Iarbor and Picr 3, Kmvvihae Harbor I IDCYP Berths G Dn~ bulk caryro berths at Pier 1, iFJo 1-larbor and Pica 1 2 and 5 Kmvaihae Harbor 7-1D0'f Llecths 7 I,iyuid hulk cargo berths ac Pier 1, Hilu Harbor and Piers 2 and 5 Kawaihve I-larbor HDO"t licrths S Commercial fishing berths am provided ar available piers and al Radio Rac, 1-Iilo 4larbor HDOT Licrths Passenger vessel (ferry, cruise ship, e[e.) berths ac Piers 1 and 5, I-lilu Flarbor vnd L'icr 4, Kawaihac harbor. eUrernam berthing sires for passenger vessel in I-lilo Harbor am at an cvtended Pier ~ a nmv pier at the northern end of Pier 1, and n ncrv pier vc 9 Cocovut Island 1-1DOT berths \lilitacy cargo (ndnding Coast Guam bc-rths vt the e_cisting Ro/Ko berth and Rvdio 10 liav, I-blo Harbor and the LSl'/LSV ramp and Pier 7 Kawaihac I-lazboc 1-1D0'1' 13er~hs Itcscamh cesscl berths a[ Picr G and Radio Ray, l-lilo 1-Iarbor and Pier 4, Kao-aihae It I-larbor HDO'r 19crths 12 hire access nrads a[ F[ilo Harbor _ I-1D01' Roadways 'Che carom seems road in Hilo may also seo~e as the Corps of Gngineea' aacs' to 13 the brrnkzvatec tID0'1' R~radrvnys '1'hc impnrecmcnt of all supporting roadways and in[caections, including 14 Kvlaniaua`ole Street, Kauoclchua Street, Silva Strc-ct and Kawaihac Rtpass Road I-JDOI' Rondsvacs Hecause Kawaihac 1-larbor lauds are adjacent to Kao~aihae Road, access roads kill be 15 eoguizant oFlotnl traffic eom[caims and will include the proper safeu~ measures LIDOT Roadways Cons[ma a Primary passenger [ermiuvl at Pier 5, I-lilo I-Ivrbor and an altemarc terminal at Pier 4, Kawaihve Ilvcboq nl[emate vtcs for Hilu Iiarbots Passenger 1G cecminal arc a[ Picr 1, Pier 2, and Cocoon[ Island 1{DOT Passcv¢er 1'ermiunl Nncigational 17 wave absorbers nndcr Picr 1, Flilo Harhor to attenuate harbor surge tIDO'P Impmvcmrnts Navigadounl 1R DrcdKing [he area between Piers 3, 4, and 5, Flilo I-Iarbor m a depth of 35 Feec HI70~1' improvemrnrs 61odiC}~iug the configurndon or boundazias o(I-Ilu I-larboi s tumiug basin to Permit Nnci~atiunal _ 1) construction or cateusiou of piers LIDO'C Improcemen[s Navigational 30 DmdKing Kawaihac 1-larbor's turning basin ro a depth of 40 fact ]{DOT Improvements Ibms[ep Products (veneer) require an acre of cargo yard m I-Iilo liubnr and siv vcres 21 (wood chip operations) a[ Kmvaihae I-Iarbor HDO"r Dn' Rulk Cazeo ~1'ermiual e E e e e c Uceanlc I ethnology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-5 E O 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental Table 2.1-2 Cumulative Projects Q Location & Project Q 22 A Ik ~ t p III py b t nacre of K~aa'hae harbor lands 1-IDO1' Drv BuIA Cargo'1'evninnl 03 S p -[ I p b p j' t • d for nv> noes of cargo yard at Kawaihvc Harbor I-IDO'1' Dry Bulk Cargo'1'crminal Liquid Rulk Cargo 24 1 p bG Gy 'd 6 Ik [• I iv pmpoced at the coral str¢kpile Kawaihae 79arbor HDO'1' Terminal liquid Bulk Cazgo 25 1 y 'd 6 Ik t 'f' 1 p sdble at Piers 2 thmogh 5 ICmvaihac Harbor llll0'1' Terminal Q In addition to the lands under their Isxecutive Order in Kawaihae llarboq the Army is provided 1[10 yards of bench arcess cast oClhe LS'1'/LSV nmp. "the area west of the camp is added to their'ryrisdittion Eor the Corns of F,ngineeZs acces's' to the 26 brenkunter 7-IDO'f h1ilitan~ Cargo Q Q 27 P 7 K ~ -h 4I b ' II b 't r d b d' L' Cor C ast Guard vessels I-IDO'r hFlitary~ Cazgo 28 '1'h - ~' f g 120/RO 6 th ' H'I H b 'ill I' cen~e as a 1,5'1'/LSV berth HDO'1' MiGtan' Cnrgo ~) C t G d ~ " I ~ ~ II t'I' R di B • < r Pier C Hil< I-(arbor 1dDOT M1LGtary Cargo Ocean research operations are pevnitted berthing For their ecssels and adjacent 30 IantL ide accommodation at Pier C, Hilo Harbor and Pier 4, Kawaihae I4atbot HDO"I' Ocean Rca~arch tit Kawaihae I-Iarboq an ama adjacent to both overseas and inter-island cargo Addi[ionnl 31 ~ I ~ ' ~ d d~ t ~d f q d p ai ns ns the ~ beet me nccessaw hIDO"f Recommendations Black Pends, 32 Kona Bluc Water Farms (locnted about Yz mile offshore Unuvloha Point N. Kona) Inc Open Ocean Aquaeulmre 2.1.5 Summary of Cumulative Impacts on Resources There are no significant cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed action (Ahi Q Aquaculmre Project) that cannot be mitigated to less than significant impacts. Essentially, this is because the proposed action is relatively small in terms of numbers of people, setting of the project, and area affected. The predicted impacts of the proposed action tither added nothing ox affected a resource in only a minimal or negligible way. Q This cumulative impacts analysis concludes with certain significant cumulative impacts solely because of the significant impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in Hawaii. After analyzing the totality of the combined cumulative impacts, the preparers of this EIS determined that it is clear that the proposed action would not cause any less than significant impacts to become significant. O The limited nature of the Proposed Action, and Alternative 2 for purposes of cumulative impacts analysis includes the following factors. The Proposed Action and Alternative 2 would only take up one mooring space within Kawaihae Harbor, would not xequue improvements to harbor facilities, would not induce an influx of off-island personnel hiring, Q would not be altering the marine environment substantially, and would not interfere with fishing or marine commerce. Finally, the potential effects of the proposed action are limited Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-6 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental geographically; rather than occurring within the whole ROI, the effects are mainly restricted to the immediate vicinity of the open ocean aquaculmre site and harbor facilities. C Some of the cumulative projects when combined with the Proposed Action or Altcmative 2 would have a beneficial or complementar}' impact by improving fish supply to the market to help meet the high demand; in addition, employment, business sales, and income would increase from both the proposed action and other past, present, and reasonabl}' foreseeable future actions, resulting in cumulatively beneficial effects on the ROI economy. ~ Geology, Sediments, Soils, and Topography The Ahi Aquaculmre Project would be situated in State waters, 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) from shore, and there is only one other aquaculture project on the North Kona Coast, the Kona Blue Water Farm. The ICawaihae Commercial Harbor would not require E improvements as a result of the proposed action. The benthic environment on the West Hawaii Coast at depths below about 1200 m, consisted mainly of sandy silty carbonate muds and silty carbonate muds with occasional basaltic boulders. Above 1200 meters we began to see large boulders of limestone and mixed Q limestone basaltic breccias. Several vertical walls were observed between 1000 meters and 400 meters, some of them extending for 10's of meters and consisting of pillow basalts. Above 700 meters, nearly all limestone surfaces exhibited signs of extensive dissolution. (HURL, Quick Look Report Dive: PV-594, October 16, 2004). Deep corals occur throughout the U.S. Pacific but onl}' the Hawaiian Archipelago and Line Islands have been the subject of any surveys. Coral habitat is patchy, suggesting at least a basic need for suitable bottom type and conditions of rapid flow. Surveys conducted off of Keahole Pt. were a mix of basalt and carbonate outcrops, and both supported Gerardia sp. and C. lauuense. Available surveys indicate coral beds dense with colonies that cover large areas axe the exception (Parrish, 2007). Given the minima] effects of the project, no cumulative impacts are anticipated to geology, sediments, soils, or topography. "1'he geologic impacts discussed in Section 2.2 would be independent of, and would not affect ox be affected b}', other projects. No other cumulative geologic effects are expected to result from the Proposed Action and other projects. Refer to Section 2.2 for more information on geological resources in the area. Q Land Use and Aesthetics Analysis of the Proposed Action and its impact on coastal land use and aesthetics has included on-site observations, research of previous documentation of use, and interviews with coastal land owners, users, fishermen and boaters. Q Use of the ocean in the proposed lease area is minimal. It is not an area specifically targeted fox anv fishery. However, it may be used by trolling boats transiting to offshore fishing areas to the southwest. From about September until April, bottom fishing is done in an area about one mile from the proposed ocean lease area. The proposed ocean lease site is at a Q depth of 220 fathoms (1,320 Eect). Bottom fish fishermen have said they fish at a depth of about 130 -150 fathoms (780 - 900 feet). "1"his year, opening of the bottom fishing season ant aquacwture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-7 Q 0 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental has been delayed until November. Throughout the }'ear, txollexs will fish for mahimahi and ono about two miles away from the proposed ocean lease site, in a section of ocean parallel d to the shoreline, at a depth of 25 - 30 fathoms (150 - 180 Feet). From about August to January, ~opelu fishermen will fish about 2'/z miles away from the proposed ocean lease site at the numerous ko~a along the shoreline at a depth of 21 - 25 fathoms (130 - 150 Eeet). Affects of the Oceansphere as a fish aggregating device is discussed below under Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources. ~ Imerviews with coastal land owners and long-time users indicated that the proposed project would not have any negative impacts on aesthetics or land use in the area. Reasons cited by the individuals included that the Oceanspheres would be submerged most of the time, tha[ the Oceanspheres are three miles (2.6 nm) from shore, that the boats and surfaced ~ Occansphexe is a similar use to the current use of the ocean area, and that the agricultural activity of aquacultuxe is consistent with the long-time ranching land use of the adjacent coastal land in that area. The Proposed Action would not involve any construction at Kawaihae Harbor or I-Iilo ~ Harbor, Impacts would be restricted to within the established harbor areas and leased boundaries and are consistent with existing land use plans. There would be no change in land use and therefore no incremental addition to land use impacts caused by the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. O The Ahi Aquaculture Project would be the first aquacultuxe operation in this area, but i[ would not create any cumulative negative effects for land use and aesthetics. This EIS is an analysis of Che proposed action at full scale build out, and includes an analysis of the cumulative impact of the proposed action with all other existing known open ocean aquacultuxe projects. But, this analysis does not attempt to characterize the carrying capacity of the entire regional ocean area for open ocean aquacultuxe in terms of land use ox aesthetics. That is an important component of a regional planning effort fox DLNR to conduct, which is be}'ond the scope of this F_IS. Please see Secrion 2.3 fox additional discussion on land use and aesthetics, and section 2.11 for additional information on Cultural Resources. O Water Qualify Since the proposed project's water quality Zone of Mixing model shows water quality parameters within state standards outside the Zone of Mixing, no cumulative impacts axe anticipated from this project. Nonetheless, the issue of cumulative impacts may arise in consideration of any additional projects that may be proposed in the region. If this lease is Q issued, it will be the third such lease in the State. The Proposed Action site is located over twenty miles from the only other open ocean aquacultuxe operation in West Hawaii. The Alternative 2 site is located about 3 tulles from the other operation. Both the Proposed Action site and the Alternative 2 site experience tremendous levels of flushing from the steady currents. Both of these sites are well removed from any habitat that would be ~ sensitive to elevated nutrient concentrations should they occur. Existing open ocean aquacultuxe operations are considered in this analysis of cumulative impacts. However, no projections axe made regarding any Eumxe additional aquacultuxe operations Eor this ocean ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Drafr Environmental Impact Statement 2-S 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences region, and no attempt is made to characterize the carrying capacity of this ocean region for open ocean aquaculture in terms of water quality. An aquaculture development plan will need to be developed that includes specifics about maximum recommended number of ~ ayuaculmre operations in any given area and recommended distances between operating aquaculture farms in an area. 11ris carrying capacity- analysis is beyond the scope of this EIS for the proposed action, and is an important regional planning effort for DLNR to conduct. Ongoing water quality monitoring will be conducted as part of the NPDES requirements. "Ihc sampling protocols are discussed in Section 2.4 5 Biological Resources Analysis of the proposed action and its impact on biological resources has included on-site observations, historical document research, analysis of marine resource management studies of the area, and interviews with Eshermen and other boaters. ~ The Proposed Action site, located in waters 220 Eathoms deep, 2.6 nautical miles from shore, is not in any area specifically targeted for fisheries. However, it may be used by trolling boats transiting to offshore fishing areas to the southwest From about September until April, bottom fishing is done in an area about one mile from the proposed ocean lease area. "the o proposed ocean Icase site is at a depth of 220 fathoms (1,320 feet). Bottom fish fishermen have said they fish at a depth of about 130 -150 fathoms (780 - 900 feet). In 2008, opening of the bottom fishing season was in November. The area designated as Habitat of Particular Concern, which is part of the Essential Fish Habitat for bottom fish is all seafloor between 21 fathoms to goes out to 918 Eeet depth (153 fathoms), which is about 400 feet shallower than the 1,320 feet (220 fathoms) depth of the proposed site. ~ "Phroughout the }'ear, trolleys will fish for mahimahi and ono about two [Hiles away from the proposed ocean lease site, in a section of ocean parallel to the shoreline, at a depth of 25 - 30 fathoms (150 - 180 Ecet). From about August to January, ~opclu fishermen will fish about 2 Yz miles away from the proposed ocean lease site at the numerous' ko'a along the shoreline at a depth of 21 - 25 fathoms (130 - 150 feet). At the Alternative 2 site (at 5,800 feet deep) located 2.6 nm west of Keahole Point, most fishing also occurs within 1- '/z miles from shore, and includes trolling parallel to shore and opelu fishing at specific ko'a fishing grounds. In addition, fishermen also report success trolling in waters at the 1,000 fathom contour line, which is located near the illtemative 2 site. i While there is some disagreement, fishermen interviewed for this analysis felt that proposed Oceanspheres would act as FADS and could affect the movement patterns of mahi and ono ~ (target species for the trolling fisher}), opelu, and bottom fish. However, most fishermen felt that the proposed site was too far away to have a significant effect on opelu. And since I the proposed site is over 400 feet deeper than the official bottom fish "habitat area of ~~ particular concern," then i[ could be argued that the site may be too deep to have an effect i on bottom fish. Nonetheless, concerns were expressed by bottomfish fishermen that the Proposed Action may cause changes to the bottomfish fishery by attracting bottomfish away from their usual grounds. "Po evaluate this potential unpact, the company conducted a "Lone Technology Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-9 ~ ~ 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental of Mixing analysis (discussed in Sec. 2.4 on Water Qualit}') that indicated no feed or waste would make it to the bottom habitat of the bottomfish. O Fishermen report that in addition to the official state-sponsored FADS in the area, there axe numerous illegal FADS deployed by private fishermen. It is also possible, as it relates to cumulative impacts, that more FADS occurring in a given area (i.e., existing FADS, illegal FADS, this proposed project, and any potential future OOA ventures) will diminish an individual FAD's impact FADS do not increase the overall numbers of fish in the sea, and as such, more FADS ma}' mean that fewer fish will be attracted to an}' single FAD. This is an interesting marine resource management research topic to invesfigate, but is beyond the scope of this 1/IS. ~~ ~~ ~d d Based on the observations at the two ongoing open ocean aquaculmre operations (i.e, Cates International, Inc. and Kona Blue Water Farms), the possibility exists that the Oceanspheres will act as Fish Aggregation Devices (FADS). Because the Proposed Action site and the Alternative 2 site are both located in very deep water compared to the Kona Blue Water Farms site, the Proposed Action and the Alternative 2 site will probably interact more with the pelagic ecosystem compared to the coastal, reef ecosystem in the vicinity of the KI3WF cages. Any additional cumulative impacts remain speculative, as there is no evidence on the potential indirect effects caused by these Oceanspheres. Based on this analysis, it is apparent that the potential effect of the proposed Oceanspheres as a FAD on the fisheries in the area around the proposed site is unknown. I[ could only be quantified once a Oceansphere is deployed and data gathered through periodic consultations with fishermen and DLNR. '1 he company proposes to allow fishing close to the Oceansphexes so that local fishermen can benefit from any fish aggregating characteristics of the Occanspheres. For safety concerns the company asks the public to please stay 100 feet (32 meters) away from the Oceansphere's surface buoy and to avoid fishing directly above or below the submerged Oceanspheres, and please no swimming, snorkeling, or SCUBA diving within the ocean lease area itself. The company proposes to continue on-going dialog with local fishermen to facilitate fishing close to the Oceanspheres, and to gather anecdotal information on changes in fishing trends. The State of Hawai`i's Fisheries Assessment Program (State of Hawaii 2007) lists four shark species (mako, silk}', oceanic whitetip, and galapagos) as commonly caught species around their 57 FADS. To what extent these sharks and other species will be attracted to the Oceansphcres, is unknown. Nevertheless, sharks and other species are known to be habituated to places where food availability is established. Uneaten pellets, fecal material and growth on the Oceanspheres, will possibly provide an ecosystem that could attract predatory fish on a continuing basis. Interactions with sharks are managed through a specific shark management plan The plan includes monitoring feedings, to reduce the release of feed into the ocean, using shark avoidance colors and patterns, shark resistant netting, and the daily practice of shark friendly diver/worker etiquette. The plan will be delivered to DLNR and be available at the woxksite. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-10 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Dolphins, including bottlenose dolphins and spinner dolphins, ma}' be attracted to the Oceanspheres also. A specific plan to manage interactions with the dolphins will include dolphin friendly practices and animal avoidance techniques. The plan will include t/ monitoring feedings, to reduce the release of feed into the ocean, using marine mammal avoidance colors and patterns, resistant netting, and the daily practice of munmal friendly diver/worker etiquette. The plan will be delivered to DLNR and be available at the worksite. "though the proposed ocean ]ease site is outside the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale ~ National Marine Sanctuary (which extends out to the 100 fathom contour), humpback whales may transit the site. Though no entanglement of whales have been reported for any anchored ayuacultuxe cages, the design of the Oceanspheres without any loose hanging nets or anchor lines further minimizes the likelihood of entanglement. A whale interaction and C management plan includes proper diver and worker etiquette. The ,plan will include monitoring feedings, to reduce the release of feed into the ocean, using marine mammal avoidance colors and patterns, resistant netting, and the daily practice of mammal friendly diver/worker etiquette. The plan will be delivered to DLNR and be available at the worksite. C Sea mrtles may also transit the site. The lack of any loose hanging nets or anchor lines minimizes any potential for entanglement of sea turtles. ~1s part of these management efforts, the proposed activity will include ongoing monitoring and reporting of interactions with marine mammals, sharks and turtles as pan of the ~ management plans discussed above. Monitoring of potential impacts on fisheries could include ongoing interviews with local fishermen. i The concern by some about the potential for transfer of fish diseases from the proposed aquaculmre operation to wild stocks was brought up in scoping meetings. Tuna health will ~ be continuously monitored and the low stocking density and flushing of clean seawater will promote mna health. If disease should occur the affected Cuna will be iemoved from the Oceansphexe. Existing open ocean aquaculmre operations are considered in this anal}'sis of cumulative ~ i impacts on biological resources. However, no projections axe made regarding any future ' additional aquaculmre operations for this ocean region, and no attempt is made to characterize the carrying capacity of this ocean region fox open ocean aquaculture in terms i of water quality. An aquaculmxe development plan will need to be developed that includes specifics about maximum recommended number of aquacultuxe operations in any given area E7 and recommended distances between operating aquaculture farms in an area. This carrying capacity analysis is beyond the scope of this EIS Eox the proposed action, and is an important regional planning effort for DLNR to conduct. Waste Management O The fish will be processed by existing permitted fish processing companies in Kona or Hilo under contract to the company. Kona Pish Company has been contacted and is interested in Technology Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-11 b 0 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences processing the tuna and shipping tuna to market. Each of these fish processing companies axe fully permitted for then operations, including waste management Hawaii Oceanic Q Technology plans to work with these fish processing companies to encourage that these fish b}pxoducts be captured and used in the local cattle feed and nutraceutical industries as the waste products axe a rich source of protein and omega 3 oils used to fight high cholesterol. The fish axe processed at the fish processing facility and the fish offal will be kept and provided directly to the local cattle feed and nutraceutical industry. The proposed hatchery operation in Hllo at the PACRC is also operating under proper permits fox tnanagcment of its effluent The PACRC is a research and development center at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. Its mission is to advance long-term sustainable use and conservation of coastal areas worldwide through aquacultuxe and resource management. O Under the proposed action at the preferred Proposed Action site, ox the Alternative #2 site, the Ahi Aquaculmre Project would resulC in no cumulative impacts on waste management in fxas[xucture within the ROI. I-Iowever, cumulative projects overall would result in incremental adverse impacts to waste management resources in general As the number of projects and developments and populations increases, the potential for exposure to and 0 occurrence of hazardous materials and conditions is also expected to increase. The Proposed action site and the Alternative 2 site would contribute vtrmally nothing to the impacts of other actions, so there would be no increased cumulative impacts. Traffic O There has been an increase in traffic on the Island of Hawaii in recent years. Much of the increase in traffic is due to residential development north of Kona and increased tounsm. As areas such as \~aikoloa developed and people moved to these developing communities, commute traffic began to overload Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in and out of north Kona. The Proposed Action site and the Alternative site would only affect the Kawaihae Haxbox and I-Iilo roadways, which are not overloaded at this time according to the Hawaii Q Department of Transportation. The individual projects listed on Table 2.1-2 would either Gave separate environmental assessment documents prepared or would not generate sufficient traffic to warrant a traffic impact analysis. Construction projects would, however, have impacts on traffic for the Q duration of each constmcton period. Harbor and harbor roadway improvement programs listed in "fable 2.1-2 would result in a short-term adverse impact during the construction phases, but these projects would actually improve traffic conditions in the long term and would have a beneficial or complementary impact on public access by improving public roadways. "These programs would serve as mitigation for additional harbor traffic and fox O commuters and tourists in the areas. In addition, there is currently a highway widening improvement project underway on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, immediately north of Kona, to address the existing traffic congestion occurrences in and out of north 1{ona. The traffic impact analysis done for this EIS concluded that the proposed action would not Q contribute to the LOS decreasing on an}' roads in the Kawaihae ox surrounding area, and would have a less than significant impact on traffic The traffic unpact analysis included the addition of emplo}'ees vehicles, work tmcks, and deliver}' trucks servicing the company's O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-12 2.1 Affected Environment and land based operations center at Kawaihae Harbor, and took into account the planned roadway improvements to the area roads. "1'he contribution to the cumulative effect on traffic by the Ahi Aquaculture Project would be minor. See section 2.7 on Traffic for ~ discussion of the 2001 Traffic Study done for Kawaihae Harbor as part of the 2020 Master Plan, which analyzes future traffic levels. This analysis assumes a 200% increase in Kawaihae Harbor mlated traffic, part of which would include traffic from companies such as Hawaii Oceanic Technology that aze leasing space in the Kawaihae Commercial I-Iazbor. The analysis also assumes certain roadway improvements are completed. Based on these f assumptions of gxowt6 and roadway improvements, the roadways axe projected to operate at acceptable levels. Air Quality Emissions related to current levels of activities have not caused cumulative impacts, because E au quality measurements on the island of Hawaii indicate that levels of all pollutants are well below the ambient air quality standards. Socioeconomics The projects listed in Table 2.1-2 could combine with the proposed alternatives to produce C significant cumulative effects on socioeconomics, but impacts would likely be beneficial. The Ahi Aquaculmxe Project would not likely result in an increase of school-aged children. The Ahi Ayuaculture Project also would not result in an increase of off-islhnd personnel, as future employees would likel}' be local residents and would not impact the local housing market or local school systems. However, with other projects that may promote population E growth, there could possibly be cumulative effects on the schools of Hawaii. Cumulafive impacts to the schools (adding more students as a result of population growth) could be mitigated to less than significant with the corresponding increased tax revenue to fund education in Hawaii. The additional tax revenue income to the state and Count}' of Hawaii from the multiplier effect of the Ahi Aquaculmre Project and other cumulative projects may have a beneficial impact on the socioeconomics of Hawaii. E Implementing the Ahi Aquaculture Project would result in small increases in employment, income, and sales volume in the ROI. Additional increases in employment, business sales, and income would also occur from other current actions and actions planned or proposed for the near future, resulting in cumulatively beneficial effects on the ROI economy. E' HOT will primarily sell its tuna to the existing Japan and California markets, and therefore wIll not have an adverse effect on the local Ahi market. The Proposed Action will only require the capture of about seven ahi each year to replenish ~ the broodstock Eor the ahi spawning operation. This small number of captured fish would have no impact on the existing wild capture ahi fishery in F-Iawaii. Emergency Services, Human Health and Safefy The demand for emergency services grows along with the general population growth in Q Hawaii. The increasing population in the Kohala and Kona areas from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects could potentially strain the capacity of emergency nn~ Aquacu~ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-13 ~ 0 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental services and facilities if service upgrades and staffing do not keep pace with population growth. Although these actions may individually have only a minor effect, together, iE Q implementation of numerous projects were to exceed the service capacity of any of these the emergency services, expansion of emergency services resources would be necessary. The mitigation of emergency services expansion would reduce the impact to less than significant. As described in Section 2.10, the Ahi Aquaculmre Project would not likely have an impact and would contribute minimally to cumulative impacts. However, the incremental impact of proposed alternatives, when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, may be significan[ if unmitigated; however, mitigations such as increasing emergency services personnel and upgrading facilities would reduce the impacts to less than significant. Cultural Resources Since the first European contac[, residential, commercial, and military developmem has destroyed ox damaged many cultural resources. Those that remain, including any undiscovered sites, constitute an increasingly important source of information, and a culmxal O legacy passed down from the traditional and early post-Contact periods. Today, more is known about cultural resources and how to protect them from adverse impacts than was true in the early days of modern development In hght of past, present, and reasonabl}' foreseeable future actions, the impacts of this and other projects on cultural resources axe an ., important consideration and must be addressed. ~~ ~~ Id ~~ As discussed above in the section under Biological Resources, the proposed site is not in any area specifically targeted for fisheries. It is located about two mIles from the area targeted by trolleys fox ono and mahimahi on the 30 fathom contour line. It is located about two miles from areas targeted Eor opelu fishing. The site is located in deeper water further offshore from the area targeted fox bottom fish, which is about 170 fathoms depth, located about one mile away Exom the site. Nonetheless, concerns were expressed by bottomfish fishermen that the Proposed Action may cause changes to the bottomfish fishery- by attracting bottomfish away Erom their usual grounds. To evaluate this potential impact, the company conducted a Zone of Mixing analysis (discussed in Sec. 2.4 on Water Quality and Scction 2.~ on Biological Resources) that indicated no Eeed ox waste would make it to the bottom habitat of the bottomfish. Also, there are no historic sites, areas of tradidonal importance or traditional cultural places in the proposed ocean lease site. Interviews with coastal land owners and long-time users indicated that the proposed project would not have any negative impacts on aesthetics ox land use in the area. Reasons cited by the individuals included that the Oceanspheres would be submerged most of the time, that the Oceanspheres are three miles (2b nm) from shore, that the boats and surfaced Oceanspheres is a similar use to the current use of the ocean area, and that the agricultural actic-it}' of aquaculmxe is consistent with the long-time ranching land use of the adjacent coastal land in that area. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Drag Environmental Impact Statement 2-14 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental All projects are subject to the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Ace. As detailed in Section 2.11, the effects of the proposed action on cultural resources would result in no impacts on prehistoric and historic resources within the ROI. However, cumulative impacts of the proposed alternatives and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions may result in incremental adverse impacts to cultural resources and historic resources by allowing a higher level of development and activities. Since cultural activities, beliefs and resources would not be changed or affected significantly C under the proposed action, ox in combination with other projects in the area, the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed action are deemed to be less than sigriificant. 2.1.6 Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity C The Oceansphere is a temporary structure and will be removed when it is not in use. Short- term damage to the environment relating to the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 would be limited. No significant impacts were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The long-term productivity of the em'ironment will not be lessened b}' the Proposed fiction C as shown in the anal}sis in Section 2.4 on Water Quality and 2.5 on Biological Resources. Ongoing em'ironmental monitoring will be done to ensure protection of the environment. Long term productivity of the open ocean aquaculture industry would be enhanced by the Proposed Action, which would help meet the high market demands of fish by providing a sustainable source of high quality-, pure, clean tuna through open ocean aquaculture. The ~ Proposed fiction is designed to meet Chese production goals and enhance the quality of life and welfare of its staff and the quality of the natural environment. 2.1.7 Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources HRS 343 requires an analysis of the extent to which the proposed project's primary and ~ secondary effects would commit nonrenewable resources to uses that would be irretrievable to future generations. Implementing one of the action alternatives would require committing both renewable and nonrenewable energy and material resources for open ocean aquaculmre operations, such as O the fuel used b}' vehicles and work boats; the increases in water, power, and other resources necessary to maintain and operate facilities for the new personnel; and Yh~e increase in local resources required to support the additional personnel and their families. However, there will be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of namral resources to O tlils project since Chapter 190D HRS, as amended, specifically requires any lessee vacating an ocean ]ease to remove all equipment and to restore the site to its original condition. It has been the case with the avo ocean leases granted to open ocean aquaculture operations in the state, the lessees axe required to purchase comprehensive insurance fox recovery and removal of anp lost or damaged farm materials, and for any other damage that might be inflicted by the farm. Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-15 O 0 2.1 Affected Environment and Environmental 2.1.8 Probable adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided 0 There are no probable adverse impacts which are expected to occur with the Proposed Action. Any potential adverse impacts have been mitigated by the design of the aquaculmre platforms without any mooring lines; and by locating the Proposed Action awa}' from the nearshom waters where most fishers and boaters and other cultural activities are located, away from where spinner dolphins rest during the day, and away from the area within 100 fathom depth that is most frequented by humpback whales. While there is a recognition that the aquaculture platforms may attract fish to aggregate around them, this is viewed by some fishermen as a potential benefit, and viewed by some as a potential adverse impact. The potential impact will be mitigated by allowing the fishers to fish close to the aquaculmre platforms, and thereby benefit directly from any fish aggregation that occurs at the Proposed Action site. Q 2.1.9 Summary of recommended mitigation measures The design of the Oceanspheres without anchors allows for them to be sited in deep waters, far from shore, but still in State waters. This reduces the potential conflicts of use with other uses such as fishing and ocean recreation that occur closer to shore. The Proposed Action 0 site was selected in put because there were no residential areas on the adjacent coastal lands. Because of special concern expressed by fishermen that they be allowed to fish near the Oceanspheres, the company has decided to allow fishermen to fish adjacent to the Oceanspheres, just not above or below the platforms. Boaters axe asked to stay 100' from ~ the hght and buoy attached to each Oceansphere. With dus mitigation measure, local fishermen will be able to benefit from the Proposed Action. To respond to the concern described by bottomfish fishermen about the potential effect of the open ocean aquaculture operation, best management practices will be used by the p compan}' to ensure no excess food ox wastes are allowed to reach the bottom environment where the bottomfish are located. The Zone of Mixing anal}'sis indicates that no food or waste would make it to the bottom in this 1,320 feet depth. The operation of the nvo other open ocean aquaculture shows no evidence of changes in the bottom environment at their depth of 200'. Therefore at 1,320' deep, the Proposed Action should not have an impact on ~ the bottom fish population. See Section 2.4 and 2.5 for more details. Additional mitigation measures will be practiced as described in the Shark Management Plan, Maxine Mammal Management Plan and Endangered Species Management Plan. "These plans' will be developed in consultation with NMFS and DLNR, provided to DLNR and available Q for viewing at the worksite. 2.1.10 Summary of unresolved issues There are no unresolved issues that have not been addressed in this DF.IS through project design, operational protocols, best management practices and mitigation. "There are pending permits that are not completed at this time. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-16 2.2 Geology, Sediments, Soils, and GEOLOGY, SEDIMENTS, SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 2.2.1 Affected Environment C Introduction/Region of Influence The Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project proposed site is approximately 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) southwest of Malae Point (Figure 1-Doff the North Kohala coast. The Alternative #2 site that was considered, but not selected as the prefeired site, is off the North Kona Coast approximately 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) due west of Keahole Point (Figure 1-10) Kawaihae Commercial Harbor (Figure 1-2) would serve as the fish feed transport location, the land-based support and the OOA daIly operations boat deployment location. The use of Kawaihae would be restricted to existing facilities, thus the region of influence (ROI) Eor this resource would be limited to the ocean floor associated with the proposed ocean lease site and its immediate surrounding area. ~ Resource Overview Geology of the Island of Hawaii The Island of Hawaii consists of five coalescent, subaerial volcanoes, an extinct submarine C volcano, and Loihi Seamount, a }'oung active volcano that has not yet grown to sea level (Claque 1998; Figure 2.2-1). Hualalai is an active volcano in the postshield stage, with the . most recent eruptions occurring 200 }'ears ago, about 700 }'ears ago, and three times between 900 and 1,200 years ago. It empts alkalic basalt every few hundred years. Mauna Loa is nearing the end of the shield stage, so the volcano's frequency and rate of eruption are (L declining, although it still discharges ]avas of tholeiidc basal[. Ocean Sediments According to "Thurman and Webber (1984), sediment on the ocean floor is generally classified as either nexidc ox oceanic type deposits. Neridc deposits are along the fringes of E land masses and are composed of mostl}' lithogenous particulate matter. Oceanic deposits are typically only appazent in deep-ocean basins and accumulate much slower than neritic deposits. Depending on conditions, the dominant deposit ma}' be of lithogenous, biogcnous, or hydrogenous origin. Oceanic deposits are Further classified into hvo t}'pes, abyssal ox oozes. Abyssal clay contains less than 30 percent biogcnous particles and more than 70 E percent lithogenous cla}' and oozes contain more than 30 percent biogcnous particles by weigh[ (Martin e[ al. 1991). \X/hIle it is suggested that about 98 percent of the sinking organic debris is degraded in the deep sea (Martin et al. 1991) and contributes little to deep-ocean sediments, marine ~ organisms still make a significant contribution to many oceanic sediment deposits. ,vni.vquacurture rro~ect- C ~ 2.2 Geology, Sediments, Soils, and Topography Figure 2.2-1 Geology of Hawaii. O V Q Geology of Hawaii naa. ao..w.. Msuns Ksa lwoSnoaM1Oa VdCan¢s NlrtSkua Vdran2s ~ It is common acceptance among oceanographers that about 80 to 90 percent of net priman~ productivit<~ is degraded to inorganic compounds (carbon dioxide, nitrate, phosphates, etc.) in the surface waters and that the remainder sinks below the euphoric zone of the deep ocean (Schlesinger 1997). As organic material descends through the water column in the O ocean, bacterial degradation continues. An estimated 95 percent of the particulate carbon degrades by 3,000 meters below the ocean surface and only small quantities reach the sediments of the deep ocean (Suess 1980, Martin et al. 1987, Jahnke 1996). Significant rates of decomposition also continue in the sediments (Emerson et al. 1985, Cole et al. 1987, Bender et al. 1989, Smith 1992). ~ Seafloor Geoloov and Topography The drop-off from the shoreline to deep oceanic waters off b4alae Point and Keahole Point is illustrated in Figure 2.2-2. At 5,000 feet (1,524 meters), in waters off North Kona and North Kohala, the bottom was low angle sediment with occasional basalt outcrops. At a depth of 2,625Eeet (800 meters) there are more basalt flow features with sandy channels and ~ corals. North of Keahole Point, there are vertical carbonate walls with the tops being at depths of around 1,312 feet (400 meters) with large cottage sized carbonate blocks at the base. There ace carbonate blocks on the slopes down from 1,640 feet (500 meters) and manganese coated carbonate blocks. The bottom at 800 meters and deeper is a steep sandy bottom with basalt and carbonate rubble and basalt outcrops and flow features. From depths Q of 4,921 feet (1500 meters) and beyond, the bottom is mostly barren low angle silt and clay bottom (Kerby 2007). ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-18 Quvik and Juvik 1998) 2.2 Geology, Sediments, Soils, and Figure 2.2-2. USGS Undersea Topography. Efforts to map the seaflc,~or and benthic habitats arc underway b}~ the National Seafloor Mapping and Benthic Habitat Studies Project (NSMBHSP). NSMBHSP strives to produce maps and geologic information that are useful for marine resource management. The project uses ttaditional data collected by the program, including sampling, bottom video, sidescan sonar, and multibeam sonar data. The project develops new methods of combining these data to produce habitat and sucficial geology maps. The project maintains collaborations with NOAA, Nadonal Park Service (NPS), Minerals Management Service (MMS), United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Hawaii Department of Education (HDOE), Department of Defense (DOD), other national and state agencies, and the biology and water disciplines of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to obtain funding for multibeam mapping operations. Methods of classification and display of sonar, video, and possibl}~ lidar data will be developed. Existing sampling data axe compiled in usSEABED, a relational database of integrated quantitative data (KBWF 2003) on seabed texture, composition, and geophysical properties for the continental shelves c,~f the US in conjunction with additional funding from the Marine Aggregates project. The areas off the Island of Hawaii that have been mapped to date include the FIIHWN\4S beavecn Maui and Oahu and a small section oEf the coast of Hilo, but no conclusive data are available for the ROl of the proposed action. Hm Aquacurture NroJect - Dratt Environmental Impact Statement 2-19 ~ 2.2 Geology, Sediments, Soils, and Topography ~ The ocean bottom at the proposed lease site is at a depth of 1,320 feet. Bathpmeteic charts of the area indicate a gently sloping benehic environment with no topographical features such as seamounts or outcroppings. According to Thurman and Webber (1984), sediment on the ocean floor is generally classified as either ncritic ox oceanic type deposits. Neritic deposits are along the fringes of land masses and ate composed of mostly lithogenous particulate matter. Figure 2.2-3 shows the dataset of marine bottom q~pe/seabed classifications as recorded on the nautical charts of the seabed geology off the northwestern coast of the Island of Hawaii (State c,~f Hawai`i Office of Planning G1S Database 2007). The Hawaii Undetsea Research Laboratory HURL Submetsible Pisces Dive Reports described the bottom type in the O Northern West Hawaii coast as rock (basalt), and although the site-specific seafloor geology classification of the subject site is not known at this time, the closest data pe,~int ma}~ indicate that the subject site may contain similar geology (rocky basalt bottom). Q Q ~' ~~ ~~ ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-20 2.2 Sediments, Soils, and To Figure 2.2-3. Seabed geology off the northwestern coast of the Island of Hawaii (State of Hawaii Office of Planning GIS Database 2007). e Project -Draft 2-21 Q ~ 2.2 Geology, Sediments, Soils, and Topography The State of Hawaii Office of Planning GiS Database 2007 maps this area as being composed mostly of rocky substrate. The site is too deep for coral reef communities which ~ depend on sunlight and precious coral communities are patchy in this area. Figure 2.2-4 is a photo taken of basalt substrate found on the slopes of Hawaii Volcanoes. Figure 2.2-4 Photograph of pillow lava found on the slopes of Hawaii Island (Photo NURP). O O O O 0 2.2.2 Impact Analysis Impact Methodology ~ Impacts on geologr}~, sediments, soils, and topograph}' were assessed based on whether the proposed activities would ahec the geology, sediments, soils, or topography of the proposed ocean lease site. Since there would be no need for harbor improvements under the proposed action, the primary impact analysis focuses on the proposed ocean lease site. Factors Considered for Impacts Analysis ~ Factors considered in determining whether an alremative would have a significant impact on the existing geological, sediment, soil, or topographic a,~ndidons included irrevocably or ireetrievably altering the baseline environmental conditions as a result of Occansphere placement and positioning, Oceansphere maintenance and routine operations, fish feeding activities, Hsh excrement, and other &sh debris. Summary of Impacts Table 2.2-] summarizes geological, sediment, soil, and topographic impacts. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Drak Environmental Impact Statement 2-22 2.2 Soils, and Table 2.2-1 Summary of Potential Geological, Sediments, Soils, or Topographic Impacts rmpact tssues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Sediments and soils Q Q Q Q Geological and topographic Q Q Q Q cases when there would be beneficial and adverse impacts, both are shown on this table. Mitigation measures would ty apply to adverse impacts. :GF,ND: ' = Significant impact + Beneficial impact = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact N/A = Not applicable = Less than significant impact = No impact Proposed Action - Malae Point No Impact The Proposed Action would use self-stabilizing technology to position the Oceanspheres, eliminating the need for anchors or other direct contact with the seafloor. This action would therefore have no impacts from Oceansphere placement, maintenance, and routine operatons. Alternative 1utilizes aself-contained and relatively self-sufficient technology foe fish feeding operations. The feeders would be automated, with feed supplies replenished every two weeks. Feeders would dispense feed efficiently to maximize fish growth while minimizing feed waste; therefore, fish feeding operations would not, likely contribute significantly to marine snow or to organic buildup on the seafloor. If instances of fugitive Eeed and fish debris occurred, it is probable that 5sh attracted to the Oceanspheres would consume the feed, that the feed would degrade and decompose rapid]}', or that the feed would be taken out by the ocean currents, as would any fish excrement or other fish debris. Analysis indicates that there will be no detrimemal impact on the benthic environmen[ due to natural processes that are commonly accepted among oceanographers that about 80 to 90 percent of net priman~ productivin-is degraded to inorganic compounds (carbon dioxide, nitrate, phosphates, etc.) in the surface waters and that the remainder sinks below the euphoric zone of the deep ocean (Schlesinger 1997). As organic material descends through the water column in the ocean, bacterial degradation continues. Harbors would not require any modifications, as the two boats would be loaded onto trailers and stored at the FIawaii Oceanic Technology harbor facilities. No harbor or harbor facilities improvements are planned. Since the proposed action would not likely contribute to any significant changes or buildup of organic or inorganic material on the seafloor, no anchoring of boats or Occanspheres is permitted, and no changes to the harbors or facilities would be needed, no impacts to the geology, sediments, soils, or topography axe anticipated. rtawau Hquacutture rro~ect- uratt C C O 2.2 Geology, Sediments, Soils, and Topography Alternative 2 - Keahole Point O No Impact The Altexnadve 2 site is deeper than the Proposed Action site, but the benthic environment is similar. Because of this, impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. The Oceanspheres would not be tethered, leaving the ocean Eloor untouched and the waste from feed, fish excrements or other fish debris would degrade and Q decompose rapidly, or be taken out b}~ ocean currents, therefore minimizing marine snow and organic buildup nn the seaEloor. No harbor or harbor facilities improvements are planned. As a result, no impacts on the geology, sediments, soils or topography are anticipated under Alternative 2. O Alternative 3 - No Action Alternative No Impact Under the no action alternative, there would be no impacts, as no aquaculture project would be undertaken and existing conditions would not change. O O O O O O ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-24 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics LAND USE AND AESTHETICS 2.3.1 Affected Environment C Introduction/Region of Influence The Proposed action site fox the Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculmre Project is off the North Kohala coast approximately 2.6 nautical Holes, (4.2 km) due south west of Malae Point. An alternative 2 site was considered, but not selected as the Proposed Action, located >/ off the North Kona Coast approximately 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) due west of I{eahole Point (Figure 1-1) in State waters. The land base for operations fox either the Proposed Action site, or the Alternative 2 site, is leased land at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor (Figure 1-2). "Therefore, the ROI for the entire operation is the project's proposed ocean lease area itself, as well as the leased land at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. _ Resource Overview Land-Based Locations The Island of I-Iawai`i is served by two deep-draft commercial harbors. I-Iilo Harbor is the primary commercial port and is located at the eastern end of Kuhio Bay on the windward, or E eastern, coast of the island. Kawaihae Commercial Harbor is located along the leeward, or western, coast of the island (HDOT 1998). Kawaihae Commercial Harbor will be used for feed storage, transportation, and the land-based support for ocean operations. Kawaihae Commercial Harbor will also be used for transporting fish to Fish-packing and processing vendors in Kona. A transport vessel will use I-Iilo Harbor to transport hatchlings from the E Hilo hatchery to the ocean lease site. Kawaihae Bay (Latitude 20° 1" 59' N Longitude 155° 49" 43' ~~ is on the Island of Hawai`i's rocky northwestern coastline. Kawaihae Commercial I-Iarbor is a manmade port, planned and constructed during the 1960s and 1970s on the northeastern side of the bay, located C approximately 28 miles (45 kilometers) north of Kona airport. The harbor basin was constructed to be 1,050 feet (320 meters) wide, 1,750 feet (533 meters) long on the northeastern side, and 1,050 feet (320 meters) long on the southwest side (HDOT 1998). Kawaihae Commercial Harbor has 23 offshore moorings, avo Tahiti-style moorings, a container loading area, a container lot, and a loading pier. The land use at Kawaihae Harbor C is designated as industrial, with open areas associated with the breakwater (Figure 23-1). The proposed land use at the Kawaihae Commercial Harbor is consistent with designated land use of the area. Submerged Lands ~ The site for the Proposed action, and dre Alternative 2 are both part of the ceded lands trust, since all submerged lands ue ceded lands. The 1999 amendments to the Ocean and Submerged Lands Leasing law (Chapter 190D HRS) dixectiy addressed the issue of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) share of the ]case revenues, by stipulating d~a[ 20 percent of lease payments should be due to OHa. C Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-25 0 O V O 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics Figure 2.3-1. Land Use Designations for Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. D_waalunsmp n N ~ E PROPOSED REVISIONS: F7 =Urban Expansion to Low Density Urban FS = Resort, Medum Dans@y Urban to Open FB = Resoq McGUm Dansiry Urban, Low Density. urban, Opm b Resod NoOe ma Open F-10= Urhen Expansim to MaGum Dendry Urban Fs1 ~ Urban Expansim to Induslriel I EGrNO KAW AIHAE "~y~~ rKawelhas ~ `Wnim»A LanNnad ^/MDpr Reaa ~'~'~ 'Village I /~/QSMa BDUSaary lions Spenser Beaad ak ~' ISI Knwelhan ~,~" ~L'anservDYDn ~~ ~ Ruan y ~Eilynsna AyiMlun - ~ ~ ®Indrll iel Mnuunae as . ~ Ixm DnnsitY I1rM1.m j+~ `~ ~ ®Mnaunl AlennlY Utlwl ~ ODUn Arco b, 9 ~PIDWSetl lniWllw tAµ Laos Mwlnb Kea' ®PVW'atl maunder iRnoN ~~ `~•s PmIN)Sen LcW (Mn5 ry Ilmnn Keunam BM 3 - { " ~F posetl Metlmm Dbr ady WDmi `x Prom:rd GD!'n lvoa "~, Piolronna Hx.otl NpOx ~'> I Proposes Rural ' t13111Unimi Exnu~smu MapunD Bav D'-11 i O~leen Knnnumenu I119hweV S. Kohala - (County of Hawaii 2005) Open Ocean The center of the preferred ocean lease site is located directly offshore of .~lalae Point at 20°O5' 40.00" N 155.55' 40.00" W, and the water depth is 1,320 Eeet (402.34 meters). ~ The center of the alternate ocean lease site located dirccdy offshore of Keahole Point is 19° 43' 39.00" N, 156° O6' 30.00"Wand the water depth is 5,800 feet (1,765 meters). Both the Malec Point and Keahole Point areas are exposed to heav}' north and west ocean ~ swells, which occur primarily over the winter months (November -March). Strong trade winds also are prevalent in winter and blow general]}r from the north or northeast. Recreational use of the Malae and Keahole area are thexefoce significand~r diminished over winter. O State Land Use classification for the Proposed Action ocean ]ease site and the Alternative 2 site is Consenration, in a Resource subzone. This Proposed Action is an identified land use in the Resource Subzone of the Conservation District, pursuant to Section 13-5-4, Hawaii ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-26 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics Administrative Rules (}-IAR), R-l, Aquaculture, D-l: "aquaculture under an apptoaed management plan." C Aesthetics The views from both Malae Point and Keahc,~le Point is of open ocean from a shoreline that has limited development. The waters of the Proposed Action Site and the Alternative 2 site ace listed as Class A waters and are protected by the State for recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment. These views ace valued by users of shoreline and near shore activities, including ~ recreational diving and fishing along the near shore fringing reef and residents with homes overlooking the ocean. At the present time the views are largely unrestricted by development The properties along the adjacent shoreline as Msae Point include open spaces, and ranch land. Land at the Kawaihac Commercial Harbor area arc primarily industrial. The properties along the adjacent shoreline to the Alternative 2 site at 1<eahole ~ Point consist of Kona lntemational Airport and the commercial aquaculture operations at National Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority and the open ocean aquaculture operations of Kona Blue ~Xlater Farm (KBWF). Residential development is located in mauka lands in the Kona Palisades area. Recreation ~ For the Proposed Action site and the Alternative site, ship based observations within the proposed site lasting a few hours and land based observational studies of over ten hour periods of observed vessels and users were performed using standard techniques typical of shore-based vessel and marine mammal surveys (see NOAA website http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/NMML). For the Proposed Action lease site, collectively 48 ~ hours of observations on site were recorded representing 190 data points taken on the half hour in three districts of 1.) within ]ease area, 2.) within three miles of ]ease area and 3.) outside of three miles from lease site. Observations were conducted on three typical weekdays and a three rypica] weekend days at each site. In addition, observational studies over a greater than eight hour period were conducted at the Alternative 2 site over a typical ~ weekday and weekend day and two boat-based obsen~ations were taken while the boar was on station foe approsimatel}' one to two hours. In addition to the obseroauons, interviews were conducted of those fishermen who have fished this area the longest foe ~opelq trolling for mahi and ono, and bottom fishing. (Please ~ see Section 2.5 for more discussion o^ biological reoueces, and Section '2.11 for Cultural Resources) Based on the observational data and the interviews with fishermen, the Proposed Action site is not in any area specifically targeted for fisheries. It is located about two miles from the area targeted by' trollers for ono and mahimahi on the 30 fathom contour Gne. It is located about nvo miles from areas targeted for opelu fishing. The site is located in deeper water further offshore from the area targeted for bottom fish, which is about 170 fathoms depth, located about one mile away from the proposed site. At the Alternative #2 site, fishernen do report fishing the ],000 fathom contour Gne, which is located close to the Alternatve #2 ~ site. This may result in some interactions with recreations fishers. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Drag Environmental Impact Statement 2-27 0 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics Malae Point had a maximum of 1.0 vessels inside of the ocean site per day at any one time, and had 12 vessels maximum at one time within three miles of the ocean lease site during an Q average day at any one time. Keahole Point had a maximum of 2.0 vessel inside of the ocean site at any one time per day, and had 8 vessels maximum within three miles of the ocean lease site during an average day at any one observation time (see appendix B). Boat observations of Marine Mammal activity, and marine biota were conducted on site by qualified whale watcher with NOAA, and a marine biologist from the USCG.A recreational Q use survey was conducted in August and September, 2007 regarding recreation use in the proposed project site area. Thirty eight users were surveyed, some by phone and others in person, and represented commercial SCUBA, snorkeling, and sailing operators; commercial and recreational Fishers; and private individuals. Only eighteen percent of the respondents said that they operate along the Kohala Coast between Kawaihae Harbor and Hawi, the Q preferred alternative, and operate behveen 0 and 600 feet in depth. A little over Eve percent of the respondents say they regularly operate around XX buoy. Nearly eighty percent of the respondents did operate west of Keahole point, Alternative 2 site, and at depths up to 6,000 feet, and eighteen percent operate around buoy OT. O 2.3.2 Impact Analysis Environmental Consequences Impact Methodology Impacts on land use and aesthetics were assessed based on whether the proposed activities were consistent with state and local land use and recreation plans and compatible with the surrounding land uses, as described in Section 2.2. Factors Considered for Impacts Analysis The evaluation of potential impacts on land use, including recreational resources, was based on the project's consistency with the following: Q • Existing/planned land uses or ownership; • Unique characteristics of the geographical area (40 CFR Section 1508.27); • The objectives, policies, and guidance of state and local land use plans; • Recreational use of the beach, ocean, or land-based resources, such as parks ox Q hiking paths, or the public's right of access to the sea; • Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program policies; and • The Public Access Shoreline I-Iawai`i vs. Coun[y of Hawaii Planning Commission decisioq which assures that Native Hawaiians can exercise traditional and Q customary practices on undeveloped and underdeveloped land. • Coastal and ocean activities as described in interviews with land users and owners of adjacent coastal property to the Proposed Action site. 0 • Goals and objectives in the Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail draft F.IS and Management Plan. (AI4~IHT 2007) Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-28 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics • Goals and objectives of the North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Landscape Smdy (UH-DliRP 2005) Summary of Impacts Table 2.3-1 summarizes impacts on land use and existing acdvities. Table 2.3-1 Summary of Potential Impacts on Land Use and Existing Activities Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Land us'e and existing activities (~ Q Q Q Ketxeatron U (~ O Q Aesthetics (~ Q 0 Q Incases when there would be beneficial and adverse impacts, both axe shown on this table. blitigadon measures would only apply to adverse impacts. = Significant impact + = Beneficial impact = Significant but midgable to less than sigitificant impact N/A = Not applicable = Less than significant impact = No impact Proposed Action - Ma/ae Point Less Than Significant Im,oacts The proposed location of the open ocean platforms is off the North Kohala coast of the Island of Hawaii due south west of Malae Point. The platforms will be situated 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) ofE shore within State waters and will be outside the HIH~Y/NMS area. The area proposed for leasing is 220 acres (1.0 square kilometers) and will contain 12 platforms, when completely developed, which will produce 12,000 tons (10,886 metric tonnes) of Ahi per year. The platforms, which are 54 meters in height and 54 meters in diameter, will be evenly distributed in the 220 acre site, as shown in Figure 1-4. The water depth at the site is 1,320 fee[ (402.34 meters); platforms will be submerged at a depth of 180 feet (55 meters). Since the Proposed Action OOA site is 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) from shore, it will only be visible in the distance Erom vantage points on the coastline. Work boats wIll be present at the site throughout the work da}; however, their presence will not affect the visual unity or visual aesthetics of the area.. Buoys and lights used to mark the platforms will be the only visible part of the platform that breaks the water surface and will not be seen from far distances and will only be visible from boats traveling within the ROI. According to interviews with several native Hawauan and kama'aina landowners and lessees of the adjacent coastal lands, there will be no unpact on the visual aesthetics of the ocean and coastal land area due to proposed site's distance from shore, that the cages are submerged most of the time, that the work boats and tops of the cages will fit right in with C C O O O O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-29 ~ O Q ~0 ~~ ~~ ~0 10 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics the other boat traffic in the area, that the navigation light is only visible two miles from die site, and that the coastal area is not used fox residential purposes. I-Iowever, there may be an impact to recreation if the platforms act as Fish attraction devices which may increase recreational fishing in the area. The impact is not considered significant because the proposed site is outside of any area targeted fox fishery; it is outside of the area designated as Essential Fish Habitat for bottom fish ox any other fish; the level of impact of the proposed action as a FAD is not predictable; area fishers have differing opinions about whether the impact as a FAD is beneficial or not; and the shore-based land owners and lessees said they didn't think there would be any impact on their visual or aesdiedc resources. Allowing fishers to fish close to the platforms will potentially mitigate any impact that is caused. Ongoing dialog with local fishers and DLNR DAR will be used to monitor any changes to fishery patterns. The recreation survey data indicated that recreation use along the portion of the coast by the Proposed Action site is small. Only eighteen percent of the respondents indicated that they operate in the area. In addition, the area is too deep fox SCUBA diving. Based on these facts, and the data gathered Exom interviews with fishermen, it is determined that the impact to recreation at the proposed ocean ]ease site from the Proposed Action is expected to be less than significant. Feed storage and feed transport will take place at Kawaihae I-Iaxbor. In support of these activities Hawaii Oceanic Technology wIll lease an existing commercial lot in the Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. The site will include the following: • An office; • A large Fenced in area for storing OOA tools and equipment; • A small communication station; • SCUBA equipment storage; and • An air compressor Eor SCUBA tanks. Three large trucks and three large 35-foot (11-meter) work boats equipped with two 150 horsepower outboard engines each and trailers will be parked at the site. Additional boats will be contracted as needed from local fisherman and salvage companies. All of these activities are consistent with existing land uses, representing a less than significant activity, and one that would have less than significant impact on recreation in the Kawaihae Commercial Harbor area. Alternative 2 -Keahole Point Less Than Significant Impacts O Impact under Alternative 2 will be similar to impacts under the Proposed Action. The proposed Alternative 2 site for the open ocean platforms is off the coast of the Island of Hawaii at Keahole Point. The platforms will be situated three miles (2.6 nautical miles) off O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-su 2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics shore and will be outside the FIIH1~IQb4S area. Al] of these activities axe consistent with existing land uses, representing a less than significant activity. There will be no impact on the visual aesthetics of the ocean and coastal land area due to proposed site's distance Erom C shore, that the cages are submerged most of the time, that the work boats and tops of the cages will fit right in with the other boat traffic in the area, drat the navigation light is only visible two miles from the site, and that the coastal area is not used for residential purposes Alternative 3 - No Action Alternative C No Impacts Under the No Action Alterna[ive, the current level of land use designations and plans or recreational use would not change, and the overall effect would be no impacts. 't'here would be no changes to the visual resources, as no structures will be introduced on land ox in the open ocean. Public access to the ROI would remain Che same. Q O O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-31 ~ 0 2.4 Water 2.4 WATER QUALITY Through the administration of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Hawaii Department of ~ Health Clean Water Branch (HDOH CWB) protects and restores Hawaii coastal and marine waters Eor residents, tourists, and marine life. In regards to this proposed project, the HDOH C\Y/B is responsible for issuing the required National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, approving the required monitoring program of the water adjacent to the project site, and analyzing water quality and operational data to Q determine compliance. The HDOH C\\~T3 also has the power to issue fines if water qualiri standards are exceeded. The waters of the proposed sites are listed as Class A waters, and as such, the state protects them Eor recreational use and aesdiedc enjoyment. Other uses, including this proposed ~ action, shall be permitted as long as they are compatible with the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Discharge of waters from the platforms into the surrounding waters must receive the best degree of treatment or control, and be covered by a NPDES general permit, approved by the US EPA and issued by the HDOH in accordance with 40 CFR Section 122.28 and all applicable requirements specified in HAR Chapter 11-55, titled O "Water Pollution Control." In addition to water quality, the NPDES permit covers impacts to the marine bottom. While the seafloor below the proposed sites for ~llternatives 1 and 2 do not fall within the specific definitions for marine bottoms, it most closely resembles the definition for "soft bottom community," a class II designation. These are protected for the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and so as not to limit recreational purposes in any way. Any action that may permanently or completely modify, alter, consume, or degrade Q marine bottoms may be allowed upon securing approval in wrtting Erom the director, considering the environmental impact and the public interest (HAR Ch. 11-54: \X/ater Quality Standards). This statute includes regulation of a wide variety of metals, poisons, and other pollutants, nutrients and physical water quality parameters (i.e, salinity, temperature, turbidity, pH, oxygen and chlorophyll). O 2.4.1 Affected Environment Introduction/Region of Influence The ocean off the Kona and Kohala coast of the Island of Hawaii is sheltered Erom the Q prevailing northeasterly trade winds by the 13,678-foot (4,169-meter) Mauna Loa and the 13,796-foot (4,205-meter) Mauna Kea, providing relatively calm waters all year round. The seafloor descends quickly Erom the coast, providing a relatively small area of coral reef habitat that hugs the coastline. The benthic habitat maps of the Kohala and Kona Coast provide an accurate representation of these resources, showing that the coral reef extends 0 approximatel}' 0.54 nautical mile Erom shore at its widest point and less than 0.14 nautical mile in most places along the coast (Coyne et al. 2003). While the Kohala and Kona Coast experiences relatively little rainfall (10 inches [254 millimeters] per year), upslope rain percolates into the porous rock, ultimately flowing into the ocean as submarine discharge of groundwater, which shape the coastal and nearshoxe marine ecosystem. The area of the O proposed project, 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) due south west of Malae Point in Kohala, is well away from the reef environment and any fresh water influences. The site for dre Proposed Action is located in 1,320 feet (402.34 meters) of water. The Alternative 2 site is 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact 2.4 Water located in deeper waters (5,800 feet vs. 1,320 feet). The Proposed Action site and the .Alternative 2 site are 20 miles apart, but the}' are both 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) Eiom shore, 220 acres (1 square kilometer) in diameter and at least 2.3 miles (2 nautical miles) from the newest reef. While support activities will occur on land and in near shore waters (e.g., transiting to the site), the description of the existing water quality and the impacts from the proposed project will be focused on this offshore cnvuonment, except where the best available scientific information and interpretation warrant an expansion of the discussion to the near shore. Resource Overview The business of open ocean aquaculture is relatively new to Hawaii, with only two other operations in existence. One venture raises approximately 300,000 pounds (136,077 kilograms) of Paufic threadfin (moi, Polydactylu.r ,rexflzr) in four platforms situated 40 feet (12 meters) below the ocean surface in 120 Ecet (37 meters) of water, 2 miles (1.7 nautical miles) off the `Ewa coast of Oahu. The second venrure raises approximately 250,000 pounds (113,398 kilograms) of Amberjack (Senola rivoliana) in five nursery platforms which are submerged in 200 feet (61 meters) of water, 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) dixecdy offshore from the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) facilit}' on the Kona Coast. The proposed project incorporates numerous technological chaxacreristics that differentiate it from these other ventures, including the following: • Operating 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) offshore with the tops of the platforms at 65 feet (20 meters) below the surface in either 1,320 Eeet (402 meters) of water (Alternative 1) or 5,800 feet (1,768 meters) of water (Alternative 2); • Using platforms that are not tethered to the sea floor; • Drawing water from 540 feet (165 meters) below the surface to operate a hybrid Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) engine that will maintain the platforms in a geostatic position; C • Dynamic positioning system and propulsion s}'stems that will position the Oceansphere in open ocean cuacnts; and • Ramping up in the first five veaxs of operation to a maximum production of 6,000 tons (5,443 metric tonnes) of yellowfin and bigeye Ahi (Thuunu,r albacare.r and T. oberu.r) per }'ear. Because of these important differences, detalled oceanographic information on currents, persistent eddies, nutrient, and other depth profiles are provided in the following section. Oceanographic Conditions Physical and Chemical Characteristics -Depth Profile Near the surface, the water column is mixed by the wind and has uniform properties (e.g., temperature, salinity, and nutrient concentrations); the depth of this turbulent layer varies from nearly 400 feet (122 meters) in winter to less than 100 feet (30 meters) in summer (Figure 2.4-1). Below the surface mixed layer (SML), there is a sharp decrease in temperature, Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-33 ~ 2.4 Water fl ~~ from 77° Fahrenheit (25° Celsius) at the surface to 41 ° Fahrenheit (5° Celsius) at 2,297 fee[ (700 meters) depth (the thecmocline). Figure 2.4-1. Seasonal average of the surface mixed layer depth N N_ O 0 m m 5 m U b L T w C Ol E m 0 a HOT 111-176 ,stn 2 Mixed-layer Depth (mean = 81.3m) m J R J O J A J O J A J O J A J V J A J V J 2100 2001 2002 2103 200J 1005 Source Iiamai`i Ocean'Pime-series program, University of Hawaii 200( Hurricanes, FI Nino, and extended periods of strong trade winds can cause the SML to deepen in the summer just as calm, unseasonably warm weather can lessen the SML in the winter, which accounts Eor the lack of seasonal bimodality in Figure 2.4-1. Properties of the water above and below the thermocline prevent miring between them. As such, most 0 dissolved nutrients and much of the particulate matter generated in the SML will not migrate to the water below, causing little impact on water quality of the deeper water. The SML is also the zone of the ocean where solar radiation is strongest, primary production of phytoplankton is high, and the concentration of dissolved nutrients is lowest Below the ~ mired layer, temperature and pH drop quickly, while nutrient concentrations increase dramatically from the near zero levels at the surface. "Island effects," such as those that occur in the lee of the Island of I-lawai`i, can reduce the SML depth (from diminished winds and current velocity) or increase the SML depth (from upwelling of water from persistent eddies). These effects shift the profiles but do not change their general pattern. Baseline Water Quality Parameters Table 2.4-1a and 2.4-1b provides relevant water quality parameters for samples taken at the center of the Malae Point site (20° OY 40" N, 155° 55' 40" W, preferred alternative) and a control site (1 mi upcuccent from site). These data arc the average c,Jf two samples taken at ~ each site for the three designated depths and provide the baseline conditions foe any furore action and associated monitoring. The three depths correspond to 1) surface conditions, 2) approximate depth of cages, and 3) approximate depth from where colder water will be ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-34 2.4 Water drawn to operate the hybrid Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) engine. As can be seen in the table, the parameters remain basically uniform through the depth proEle. Table 2.4-1a Water Quality Parameters at Proposed Action Site off Malae Point, Kohala (n=2) 0-5 meters 50 meters 150 meters EPA Method Total Nitrogen (µg/L) 89 89 9] 353 2 Ammonia Nttrogen (NI-Is*) (µg/L) < 1 < 1 < ] 350 Nirrare + Nitrite (µg/L) 5 5 5 353 2 Orthophosphate (µg/L) 4 3 3 365 4 Total Phosphorous (µg/L) 14 14 14 465 2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I,.) 6.85 6 89 6 9] 360 1 lurbtd~ty(NTLJ) .185 ]93 ]75 1801 Ph 8.3 8.3 8.3 '1'emperatuxe (°C) 27,7 2R.0 27 9 Saume: Sce note for fable 2.416. Table 2.4-1b Water Quality Parameters at Control Site (n=2) 0-5 meters 50 meters 150 mciers EPA Total Nitrogen (µg/L) 90 99 90 353 2 Ammonia Nitrogen (NI-I~*) (µg/L) < 1 < t < 1 350 Nitrate + Nitrite (µg/L) 6 5 5 353 2 Orthophosphate (µg/L) 3 3 3 365 4 Tots] Phosphorous (µg/L) ]5 15 14 3652 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 6.85 6.83 6 87 360 1 Turbidm• (NTU) .175 191 1C5 1801 pH 8.3 83 83 CTD Temperature (°C) 27.7 28 0 27 3 Salinin~ 35.0 35.0 35.0 Source: On sire sampling on September 14, 2007, contracted b}' AECOS Labs. Surface samples were collected with a plastic bottle on a pole. Niskin boides' were used co sample at depth. Water temperature, pFi and salinit}• were measured in situ. lluplicate samples were collected, rested at AriCOS, Iiailua-Kwa, and the results were averaged. The consul site is lacared one mile nar[h of the Proposed Action site. AECOS followed published EPA water qualin° analysis methods numbers 353.2, 350, 353.?, 365, 365.2, 360.1 and 180.1, and used standardized buffers to calibrate electrodes for in-ritu pH, Temperature and Salinin~. On site sampling was conducted on September ]4, 2007, contracted by r1ECOS Labs. Surface samples were collected with a plastic bottle on a pole. Niskin bottles were used to sample at depth. Water temperature, pH and salinity were measured in situ. Duplicate samples were collected, tested at APCOS, Kailua-Kona, and the results were averaged. The control site is located one mile north of the Proposed Action site. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Protect - Drafr Environmental Impact Statement 2-35 C E O 0 0 2.4 Water Other Water Quality Studies Q The Eocus of the Hawaii Open-ocean Aquacultuxe Research Program (I-IOARP) (Ostxowski and Helsley 2003) included routine observations of water quality, health of the ecosystem outside the cages, interactions with protected species, and changes in the bentluc assemblage were made to assess these potential impacts of open ocean aquaculture in tropical oceanic settings. Observations over the past 6 years demonstrated that there was no measurable change to the water quality at the site. Observations of chlorophyll-a and turbidity suggest there was no important change in phytoplankton abundance near the cages, or that the change was so small that it could not be distinguished from the natural background variability. ~ Observations of environmental variables were made around a research site at the Cates International, Inc. offshore fish farm, about 3.22 km (2 miles) south of Ewa Beach, Oahu for 6 years. Initially, these were simply water quality measurements and assessment of changes in the micro-benthos beneath the cages and at control stations some 400 m up and down O stream that were made as part of aset oEproof-of-feasibility experunents. The research at the experimental site was transferred to the farm site in 2001 when the farm commenced operation. Other water quality data from the Kona region near Alternative 2 include a monitoring O program conducted by [he Water Quality Laboratory at the NELHA doing quarterly water quality sampling and analysis around Keahole Point since 1989. While the the Alternative 2 site is 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) west Erom the NELHA monitoring area, the data provide a baseline to detect any changes in water quality in the groundwater or on the fringing xecf from Ho`ona Bay to Wawaloli. These data reflect the water quality in the Keahole-Unualoha area. Kona Blue Water Farms also conducts water quality monitoring as part of their permit ~ for the ocean lease near Unualoha Point. Currents Current speed is the primary factor in determining the proposed project's impac[ on water qualin~, with higher speed generating more flushing and dIlution of the nutrients generated. ~ Current structure at the ocean lease site is described in detail in the Current Study Report. Currents on the west shore of the Island of Hawaii, approximately 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) off the coast, axe generally one half to two knots (see appendix Current Study Report). Long-term current monitoring indicates a much slower average current speed. Figure 2.4-2, 0 which is a 100-year average current speed around Hawaii based on 40,000 obsen-ations of ship drift, 85,000 observations of satellite-tracked drifting buoys, and 8,000 modern current measurements, indicates average speeds of less than 10 centimeters per second (0.2 knots). This is a large underestimate of actual instantaneous speeds, as the counterflow observations occurring at different times of the year will add up to an overall weaker current pattern. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-36 2.4 Water Qual 25 zo° 15° Figure 2.4-2. Average Surface Flow _, 25 curls -tr0 -t 65 -tom -t f35~ -t50 __~ . _I-`4-1 - - - - - - - ,s- - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - Source: Plameot 1996 (25 cm/s -~ 0.5 koo[) E e C This on-site observation is confirmed by observations at NELHA noting that currents along the Kona Coast tun from south to north. These currents are deflected by Keahole Point, and a gyre (circular current) develops to the north of Keahole Point Authoritative current data Q are only available for the Keahole Point area from a monitoring program conducted by the Look Laboratory of Oceanographic Engineering in 1979, to provide engineering information fox deployment of OTEC. Physical processes that contribute to the mean and variable flow in the region include the wind stress and its space-time distribution, tidal motions, and eddies. The long-term average Q surface currents in this general region are weak, ~10 cm/s towards the west (Lwnpkin and Flament, 2001), but the actual currents at an}' particular time are often relatively strong (50 cm/s or more) and variable in direction because the region is dominated by eddies (Patzert, 1969; Lumpkin, 1998). The variance of sea level observed from satellite altimeters clearly shows that the region west of Hawaii Island is subject to strong variability (Cali] et al., 2008). Q Current measurements axe available for the region west of Hawaii from OTEC enc-ironmental studies during the 1980s, from satellite-tracked surface drifters, and from shipboard during the recent E-Flux program. In addition, the Na~~}' operational ocean analysis system combines the HyCOM (I-Iybrid Coordinate Ocean Model; Hurlburt et al., Q 2008) with ocean and atmospheric observations to estimate the state of the global ocean at very high (8 km) resolution. Moored current measurements at [he HOTEC-1 location were made by Edward Noda and Associates from December 1980 to April 1981. The water depth at this location is 1341 m. ~ Currents were measured at depths of 54, 101, 151, 363, 771 m. This record is too short to establish the mean flow; however it demonstrates die variability of flows that affect this area. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-37 Q 0 2.4 Water The current speed was rarely less than 10 cm/s. During the fast half of the record, typical speeds were 20 cm/s with frequent increases to 40 cm/s. An event with tnaximum speeds of ~ more than 80 cm/s towards the north occurred over a 20 day interval in the middle of the record. As the currents weakened, they veered towards the west and then southward. This was likely due to an anticyclonic eddy that formed close to, but north of the site and then propagated westward. ~ Water Quality Model Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR 11-54) state that all waters will be free of substances that are attributable to domestic pollutants, industrial pollutants, or other sources of pollution and it sets limits Eor effluent discharge. "1'he OOA site is classified as oceanic waters. In order to estunate the effects on water quality of the proposed aquaculture operation, a zone of Q mixing model was constructed fora 247-acre (1-square kilometer) area and a 492-foot- (150- meter-) deep operating volume. Published nitrogen and phosphorus dischazge rates vary based on operational design, species raised, and types of feed. Empirically derived discharge rates Erom select authors for marine finfish which were fed pellets and cultured in platforms in the environment vary between 25 and 104 Kg Nitrogen per tonne of fish produced and 7 O to 18 Kg Phosphorus/ tonne of fish (Brooks and Mahnken 2003; Enell 1995; Glencross 2003; Lupatsch and Kissil 1998). The collective average discharge rates from these studies of GS Kg/tonne nitrogen discharge and 9 Kg/ tonne phosphorus, were adapted fox the water quality model. Total Suspended Solids (fSS) was modeled as Feed Conversion Ratios of 15 percent uneaten and 17 percent of eaten feed in fecal production. Peak production will be O 6,000 tons (5,443 metric tonnes) of Ahi per year, in a 0.2 knot current (worst case scenario), which is half the speed of the measured mean ocean current over a four month current meter deployment (see appendix Cuxxent Study Report), the following modeled excess of nutrients will be added to the surrounding seawater at the edge of the zone of mixing (Table 2.4-2). State of Hawaii water quality standards are provided to compare to nutrients added during modeled fully operational farming activities. Faster currents will provide fox lower ~ concentration of effluents due to the effects of dIludon with clean ocean waters. Table 2.4-2 Comparison of State Standards with Modeled Farming Activity Effluent 0 State of Modeled ZOM3 Hawaii Effluent Excess Standardt at 0.2 knot current Ammonia A~itrogen (µg/L) 1.0 Less than 0.52 Nitrate + Nitrite (µR/L) 1.5 Less than 0.52 Total Phosphorous (µg/L) 10.00 0.06 Turbidity (NTU~ 0.03 - 1 Standard concentration is the allowable Gmi[ lis[ed in [-IAR Ch. 11-506 (c)(3) "Oceanic watera" 2 Nephetometrie Turbidity Units 3 %OM = %one of Miring ~~ TSS are modeled as mass; however, the Hawaii standards are in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (N1'U), which are based on the scattering properties of light. Based on long-term Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-38 2.4 Water Quality ~ monitoring data by NELFIA for inshore waters, turbidity is very low and there are negligible levels of particulate matter. Turbidity values along the cross-reef txansect at the tip of Keahole Point range from 0.10 NTU at the surface to 0.14 N"lU at the bottom. ~ 2.4.2 Environmentallmpacts Impact Assessment Methodology lY~ktile marine aquaculture has a long history across the world (e.g., salmon pens, oysters Q farms) and in Hawaii (e.g., fish ponds), with many peer-reviewed scientific environmental impact analyses available in the literamre, OOA is a more recent phenomenon, with less scientific literature to draw upon. The few studies that are available come from an initial set of pilot studies (Hawai`i Offshore Aquacultuxe Research Project, phase I and II) conducted by the University of Hawaii and Oceanic Institute and the monitoring of the two existing O OOA operations ongoing in Hawaii (Cates International, Inc. [CIIJ moi platforms and Kona Blue Water Farm [KBW"F] kampachi) for compliance with state and federal water quality standards. Given the limited available research to reference, the growth of this industry must be closely monitored in a systematic way, such that these questions can be deFmidvely answered Eor these and future operations. Q Factors Considered for Impacts Analysis Marine water quality is governed by both federal and state laws and regulations. Federal authority rests primarily with the USACE and the US EPA. While the USACE is primarily concerned with issuing permits Eor structures located in navigable waters, they also consider impacts to the environment through its "public interest review" of Section 10 permits. The E7 US EPA has regulatory authority of aquaculmre facilities, categorized as "concentrated aquatic animal production facilities" under the C1X/A. Based on this categorization, OOA facihtes are hsted as point sources of pollution and must obtain a NPDES permit when production reaches 100,000 pounds per year. NPDES permits are issued by HDOH C1~B. Minimum water quality standards are codified in HRS Chapter 342D, Water Pollution, and HAR 11-54, Water Quality Standuds. Minimum standards are allowed to be escecded within the ZOM, which is determined and defined during the NPDES permit process. For the purpose of this section, factors considered fox impact analysis include the following: ~ • HRS 342D and HAR 11-54; • Requirements described in the NPDES permit application and associated ZOM model; • CWAoE1972; • Data and analyses of existing 00.1 operations in Hawaii; and • Scientific literature on the natural fluctuations of nutrient and ph}'toplankton concentrations in the waters off the Kona Coast. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-39 ~ 0 Summary of Impacts Table 2.4-3 summarizes impacts on water quality. Table 2.4-3 Summary of Potential Water Quality Impacts 2.4 Water Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Q Deterioration of water quality O O 0 0 down current of farm Accumulation of fish feces under O O O O platforms ox on downstream reefs Incases when there would be beneficial and adverse impacts, both are shown on this table. Q LL.GF.ND: = Significant impact + = Beneficial impact ~ = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact N/A = A~ot applicable = Less than significant impact = No impact 0 Proposed Acfion - Malae Point Less than Significant Impacts O Deterioration of water quality dorim current of farm. Based on the water quality model and water quality data collected on September 14, 2007 from surface, 50 meters and 150 meters at both the center of the preferred site and 1 mile upcurrent from the site, leads to the conclusion that there will be little impact to water quality. Pumping water from a depth of 427 feet (130 meters) to the platform depth of 180 feet (55 meters) will have no effect on O nutrient concentration around the platforms. \X/hile the water drawn from 427 feet (130 meters) is just below the SML, the differences m temperature, nutrients, and other water quality parameters between these two water masses is negligible (see table 2.4-1). Stocking the platforms with fish will result in some increase in nutrients and particulate matter in the water column from the Fishes' metabolic wastes, Eeces, and any excess feed. ~ The prevailing currents in the ROI (see appendix Current Stud}' Report), constant mixing of the SML, placement of platforms at 180 feet (55 meters) depth, 3-mile (2.6-nautical mile) distance from coral reefs and depth of the water at the site all indicate that Yhexe will be negligible impacts on water quality in the immediate vicinity of the platforms. ~ The best examples of likely impacts on water quality axe drawn from [he smdies of the OOA research projects and water quality monitoring from the subsequent commercial moi operation off `Ewa Beach, Oahu, (CII) as well as the water quality monitoring program of the cages OS mile offshore of Keahole Point for KWBF (KBWF 2003). The broad conclusions drawn fzom these studies are that the tremendous dilution factor of the water Q moving through these deep-water OOA platforms gxeady reduces the impacts on the water quality downstream of the operation. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-40 2.4 Water Quality ~ Studies from the `Ewa Beach site found that dtere was an increase in ammonia levels directly downstream from the platform after the first feeding of the day, but that, in most instances, this was quickly mixed and absorbed by ^aturally occurring bacteria and phytoplankton ~ (KBWF 2003). Values reached ambient levels (comparable with control sites) within 99 feet (30 meters) downstream from the cage. In addition, TSS showed no discernible trends ox changes. Any fluctuations that were evident may well have been caused by high surf ox strong currents, rather than Erom any impact of the fish cage. The depth of the water and distance fLOm land for this project would retnove the possibility of this confounding factor. Q In contrast to the Cates International operation on O`ahq the KBWF operation is the most sunilar to the Proposed Action site and Alternatiae 2 site. As such, the data from the KBWF monitoring stations are described here to com'ey the potential impact from the proposed action (data are available at KBWF 2006). Foe each parameter, the state water quality Q standards are provided fox Class A oceanic waters, where the Proposed Action site and Alternative 2 site axe located. Please note that the water quality data from the KBWF site should not be compared directly with the listed state standards, as these standards axe specific to the oceanic waters of the Proposed Action site and Alternative 2 site, and not the nearshore waters of the Kona coast. O Two KBWF monitorutg stations are at the "LOM boundary upstream of the prevailing current (control stations), one is immediately downstream of the platform with the highest biomass (effluent station), and four are at the ZOM boundary downstream of the prevailing current (compliance stations). All stations are sampled at the surface, midwater (same depth Q as the platforms - 50 feet [15 meters]), and bottom. Samples axe taken one hour after feeding. Control and compliance stations are switched in the event of a reversal of the prevailing current. Turb/dity: The overall pattern of the KBWF water quality data is one of occasional, marginal increases in turbidity at the midwater effluent station, compared wide other depths ~ and stations. The latest available data Qune 2006) show control readings between 0.2 and 0.35 NTU, compliance readings between 0.14 and 0.3 NTU, and effluent readings between 0.21 and 0.3 NTU. The state minimum water quality standard is 0.03 NTU (geometric mean) for Class A oceanic waters. Ammonia. The overall pattern of the KBWF water quality data is one of no discernible difference in levels of ammonia between the two control stations, the effluent station, and the four compliance stations. The latest available data Qune 2006) show control readings of 0.5 µg/L, compliance readings behveen 0.5 and 2.0 µg/L, and effluent readings of 0.5 µg/L. The state minimum water quality standard is 1.00 µg/L (geometric mean) fox Class A Q oceanic waters. Nitrogen. The overall pattern of the KBWF water quality data is one of no discernible difference in levels of total nitrogen between the two control stations, the effluent station, and the four compliance stations. "1'he latest available data (June 2006) show control readings Q between 93 and 139 µg/L, compliance readings between 105 and 125 µg/L, and effluent Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-41 ~ io ~~ ~~ ~~ 2.4 Water readings between 118 and 125 µg/L. The state mirnmum water quality standard is 50.00 µg/L (geometric mean) Eor Class A oceanic waters. While the Proposed Action is to produce as much as forty-six times mom fish than the current KBWF production, this increase will occur gradually over five years. During this period, a water quality monitoring program, required fox the NPDES permit, will be ongoing. Potential increases in concentrations of required monitoring parameters as production increases will most likely be gradual If pre determined limits of any of these parameters axe approached, production will level off, so as not to lose the necessary permit. A detailed description and requirements of the NPDES permit process is discussed below under Monitoring Program. Given the distance from land and depth of water, the strict standards for water yualiry for oceanic waters, the high volume of water moving through the site quickly diluting excess nutrients, and the high variability of natural concentrations of nutrients due to cyclonic eddies (see Current Study Report), the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact on water quality in the ROI. No Impacts Accumulation offish feces under platforms or on downstream reefs. Concerns raised during public meetings fox KBWF's open ocean leasing process indicated misperceptions about the potential for fish Eood or fish feces to wash up on the beaches. Additional concerns were expressed over the impact of the bentlaic habitat from Eood and feces directly under the platforms. Fish feces are primarily composed of liquid material and axe quick]}' dispersed. Feces from fish such as mahimahi, tunas, and jacks are not composed of discrete stools, are not odiferous, and do not carry bacteria or other microbes that may be potentially pathogenic to humans. Any solids in the fish feces are negatively buoyant and descend in the water column. Carnivorous fish have highly efficient digestive systems, while herbivores are highly inefficient. Most divers are familiar with the prodigious streams of feces that are frequently emitted by paxxotfish (uhu, Family Scandae) or surgeonfis'h (palani, maiko, etc. [Family Acanthuridae]), yet few recall seeing feces from carnivorous fish. Similarly, most fishermen also recognize the difference in large-intestine volume between herbivorous and carnivorous fish. Most fish feeds are designed to sink graduall}' through the water column. Feed that falls uneaten through the platform will likely be eaten by the wild fish around the platform. There is only a remote possibility that any food missed by several species of wild fish would reach the seafloor in the proposed operation, as it would need to travel 1,320 feet (402 meters) in ~ increasingly denser water. Vertical movement would ultimately slow or even stop, while the weak cross currents would disperse the particulate matter until it is consumed by mid-water fishes or bacteria. Finally, any feed that is not eaten by the fish represents a waste of money. Pendent management practices decree that feed wastage be minimized. This will be accomplished by multiple feedings per day by the automated Eeeders attached to the ~ platforms- and a program of monitoring the consumption rates of the fish to determine the point of satiation Eor the size of fish and density in individual platforms. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-42 2.4 Water Quality ~ Given the less than significant impacts on the benthic habitat for the Cates International, Inc (CII) and reported in the I-Iawaii Open-ocean Aquaculture Research Program (I-70ARP) (Ostrowski and Helsley 2003) study, in conjunction with the great depth of the water and ~ large distance from land at the Proposed Action site and the Alternative 2 site, no impacts on the benthie habitat below the platforms or on the reef downstream of the platforms are anticipated. Monitoring Program ~ Monitoring and NPDES Permit Requirements. The project will require a NPDES permit. This will consist of approvals and ongoing oversight by the US EPA, with a long- term water quality monitoring program under the supervision of the I-IDOH C\wB. This program will be paid for by Hawaii Oceanic Technology adhering to established protocols and standards, and will be designed to detect any impacts on water quality from the Q operation. Any breach of these conditions could result in loss of the permit, which would cause operations to immediately cease. I-Iawaii Oceanic Technology management will therefore employ best management practices, ensuring that stocking densities and feeding strategies maintain all water quality parameters within the allowable limits imposed by the permit ~ Initial sampling to determine baseline conditions was conducted on September 14, 2007. Additional sampling will begin with a survey in the first year of the lease and then will consist of follow-up surveys, as the operation grows to the stated capacity. These surveys will measure a wide range of water quality parameters, such as salinity, temperature, oxygen C saturation (percent Oz), acidity (1'H), phosphates (PO4), silicates (Si(OH)4), nitrates (NOz + NOs), ammonium (NHq), total phosphorous (TP), total nitrogen (TN), and water clarity (turbidity). The full extent and frequency of such sampling will be determined during the NPDES permitting process, by I-IDOI-I CAB in consultation with US EPA. Hawaii Oceanic Technology expects that similar standards would govern the NPDES permit and monitoring for the action alternative sites if this project proceeds. E By way of comparison between existing and permitted conditions, the ZOM limitations for turbidity pertitted for the CII OOA operation off `Ewa Beach are a geometric mean of only 0.20 NTU. NELHA water quality values range from 0.10 to 0.14 NTU, while control readings (i.e., natural levels) of the NPDES monitoring program for KBWF are between 0.2 E and 0.35 NTU. The HAR listed standard for oceanic waters is 0.03 NTU. Allowable levels under the CII NPDES permit for ammonia nitrogen levels are for a geometric mean of 2.70 µg/L; NELHA values are 1.68 µg/L, and the KBWF monitoring program reports concentrations between 0.5 and 2.0 µg/L. The HAR listed standard for oceanic waters is 1.00 µg/L. C Alternative 2 - Keahole Point With respect to water quality, impacts under Alternative 2 are similar to impacts under the Proposed Action. There are no differences between how the operation will be carried out, including size of the lease area, total number of platforms, amount of feed used and fish C raised, and the use of deep cold water to power the POP system. In addition, while the sites ue approximately 20 miles apart, they are both 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) from shore and at Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-43 ~ 2.4 Water Quality least 2.3 miles (2 nautical nilles) from the nearest reef. Ocean Curren[ speeds are similar at the two sites, creating a similar dlludon factor for the waste generated. While Alternative 2 is Q located above deeper water .(5,800 feet [1,768 meters]) than the Proposed Action site (1,320 feet [402 meters]), this additional depth will likely not alter the nature of the dilution, as data from KBWF and CIT, as well as the Zone of Mixing modeling results (see table 2.4.2) indicate that the depth at both sites is sufficient to minimize the impact on water quality and benthic habitat in the area. As such, deterioration of water quality down current of the farm ~ will be a less than significant impact and the accumulation of fish feces under platforms or on downstream reefs will have no impact on water quality. Alternative 3 - No Action O No Impacts The no action alternative would be to not carry out [he proposed action, and would therefore conduct no activities in the water. As such, no impacts to water quality or the benthic habitat would occur. Q 0 O Q O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-44 2.5 Biological Resources Q 2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2.5.1 Affected Environment O Introduction/Region of Influence This section describes biological resources found to occur in the ROI, which is in ox adjacent to the Proposed Action ocean lease site, and the Altemative 2 site, both of which are in state waters. Since many of the marine species discussed in this section are wide ranging and can Q be found in adjacem federal waters (3-200 nautical miles), the description of the resources is effectively the same for state and federal waters. Because the sites axe 2.6 nautical miles from shore in 7,320 Eeet (402 meters) (Proposed Action site) and 5,800 feet (1,768 meters) (Alternative 2 site) of water, near shore biological resources, including corals, reef fish, benthic algae, and other reef-associated fauna will be discussed as a community and not in species-specific detail. Q The ROI for terrestrial resources is more narrowly defined, because land-based activities at the ICawaihae Commercial Harbor, Hilo Harbor, and on public roads, for the Proposed Action and the Alternative 2 are trivial and include daily driving within the Kawaihae Harbor area, service tracks, delivery trucks, and other work vehicles driving to and from the Q company's leased equipment storage and office site, boat launching, vessel and equipment wash down, and product transshipment from the harvest vessel to trucks for transport to Kona. These activities are similar in type and scope to activities occurring every day by hundreds of residents of the island. As such, describing the inventory of terrestrial biological resources in the ROI is not beneficial in analyzing the impacts of the proposed action. Q Resource Overview Biological resources include plant and animal species and the habitats or communities in which they live (i.e., vegetation species and communities, general wildlife, sensitive species and habitats, and wetlands). Q Natural resources were evaluated in accordance with applicable provisions of numerous statutes and regulations, executive orders, and permits. Species are identified as federally listed if protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and as state-listed if considered to be threatened or endangered species by the State of Hawaii. Q Relevant biota can be divided into three types: terrestrial biota, marine biota, and rare, threatened, or endangered species. The effects of the proposed project on rare, threatened, or endangered species or thcu habitats are considered independently, in light of the regulatory requirements of the b4igratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Q Act (MMPA), and the ESA. Terrestrial Biota The proposed project will not significandy impact any terrestrial biota, including any of the 46 endangered plant species with critical habitat designation on the Island of Hawaii, or the Q endangered Hawaiian goose (Branta randoicenris). V(ntile seabirds do make their nests on land, they spend the remainder of their lives at sea and are considered marine species. There are Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Drak Environmental Impact Statement 2-45 e O 2.5 Biological Resources only a few populations of seabirds that breed on the Island of Hawaii, including the Newell sheanvater (Puffznur auritularir newelk) in the Puna district (Reynolds and )3itchotte 1999), and Q the Black Noddy (Anous minutu.r), which nests in the sea cliffs along the Southern coastal strip of Volcanoes National Park (Binding Hawaii 2004). The proposed OOA site for Alternative 1 (20°05'40.00" N 155°55'40.00" \~ and for Alternative 2 (19°43' 39.00" N 156.06' 30.00" ~ are infrequently used as a foraging area by seabirds. Observations indicate that most seabird activity in the area is confined to the primary pelagic fishing grounds off West Q Hawaii, in an area northwest of Keahole Point, about fifteen miles south of the Proposed Action site, and abou[ five miles north of the Alternative 2 site. Marine Biota Due to the depth of the seafloor at both sites, 1,320 feet (402 meters) for the Proposed Q Action site, and 5,800 feet (1768 meters) for Alternative 2, surveys axe extremely expensive, requiring the use of a remote operated submersible-supported research vessel (ROV). To date, eight scientific surveys have been conducted in the deep waters in the area of the Alternative 2 site, and these only dove to a maximum depth of 1,600 Eeet (488 meters). All of these dives occurred at the Keahole Point precious coral bed and surrounding area. Q Information gained Erom these dices are discussed below in the Deep Water Corals section. Based on general knowledge of deep ocean habitat and shallow-water surveys off Kona that assessed the decrease in marine life with increasing depth, the deeper waters of both the Proposed Action site and the Alternative 2 site most likely support a highly limited benthic community and fish faunal assemblage. SCUBA survey dives at several points along the reef face, south of Unualoha Point, have extended down to the juncture with the sand substrate at the bottom of the reef slope, which occurs at a depth of between 120 feet and 155 feet (37 meters and 47 meters). At each site surveyed, the sand substrate extended off towards the west unintexmpted and showed no evidence of benthic macrofauna. The few marine plants or animals found ue mostly pelagic, either planktonic algae or Eree-swimming open-water fishes. These same conditions likely occur at the deeper site for the Proposed Action site and ~ the Alternative 2 site. These species axe, by definition, non residents, and would not be permanently impacted by the proposed activities. Benthic and Fish Surveys. Q No benthic ox fish surveys were previously conducted in the Proposed Action site or Alternative 2 site. Fishery data were gathered by interviewing longtime fishermen using the waters around the Proposed Action site, and studying oral histories of longtime fishermen in the waters around the Alternative 2 site. The Proposed Action site, located in waters 220 fathoms deep, 2.6 nautical miles from shore, is not in any area specifically targeted Eor Q fisheries, according to interviews conducted in the Cultural Impact Assessment 1'he proposed site is located about two miles from the area reported by fishers as the trolling lanes for ono and mahimahi that is roughly parallel with the shoreline on the 30 fathom contour line. The proposed site is located about two miles from areas reported by opelu fishermen as the opelu ko~a's along the adjacent shoreline. The proposed site is located in Q water that is 300 feet deeper and about a mile further offshore from the deepest area fishermen report that is targeted for bottom fish, at about 170 fathoms depth. The proposed site is in waters 400 feet deeper than the area designated by federal management agency O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-46 2.5 Biological Resources Q NMFS as a Habitat of Particular Concern fox bottom fish, which is all seafloor between 21 fathoms to 153 fathoms. (See [he section below on Essential Fish Habitat). At the Alternative #2 site off Keahole Point, fishermen do report trolling on the 1,000 fathom Q contour line. Alternative #2 site is located in waters 5,800 Eeet (967 fathoms) deep. A comprehensive survey of reef fish, coral reef, and associated algae and invertegrates was conducted as part of the West Hawaii Aquarium Project at throe neaxshore coral reef areas along the Kohala coast in the general area of the Proposed Action site. The Lapakahi site is Q a protected Marine Life Conservation District The Kamilo site is an open site used fox reef Fish collecting, and the Waiakailio Ba}' site is a Fish Replenishment Area. Data for these three sites is found in the report to the legislature (DLNR-DAR 2004), and is used to measure the effectiveness of the West Hawaii Fishery Management Area (I-IRS 188F-5). The Coral Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program includes a study site at Kawaihae Harbor. Q Results from this long term monitoring program at the Kawaihae site indicate that the reef structure habitat is complex, supporting average coral cover, dominated by Porites species with low macroalgal coverage. North of the harbor, the basalt pavement is covered by sand and slopes gently. (http://cramp.wcc.hawaii.edu) A comprehensive survey of marine biota was conducted on the reef directly adjacent to die Q KBWF lease area, including a comprehensive inventory of the benthic biota of the fringing reef crest. A series of four transects of 25 m x 2 m that extended parallel to Che reef crest was documented with video footage, which was then digitized Eor election of random points on the video frames. The surrey revealed that the site is characteristic of similar areas along the Kona Coast that have steep drop-offs close to shore, and are subject to hea~ry wave action Q during storm surf conditions. There was a high coral cover (50 percent live coral) over a basalt pavement (from the 1801 lava flow). Predominant species included Pouter lobata (29 percent cover) and Poczlloporu meandrina (8 percent). Fishes were surveyed using visual census techniques over the same transect fines. The fishes C showed similarly high levels of abundance and diversity to the corals. Plankdvores were numerically dominant (70 percent), as might be expected in an area close to a steep offshore slope. CGromi.r vunderbilti was by far the most dominant species (66 percent of total abundance). Other damselfish (Pomatentridae), surgeon-fish (Acanthundae), and wxasses (Labndae) were also present in moderate numbers E This survey- adds further information to the ongoing DLNR monitoring program, providing a detailed baseline of the reef landward of the KBWF site and what the expected conditions are landward of the two project alternative sites. C Sharks. Ten inshore and nine (known) offshore shark species occur in Hawaiian waters. Additional pelagic species ma}' occur in Hawaiian waters, but sightings have been rare ox nonexistent and are not included here. None of these species are specifically protected under federal ox Hawaii State ]aw, although the white and whale sharks are protected in many of their primary habitats worldwide and are both listed on Appendix II of the Convention on C International Trade in Endangered Species. Of the following fist, two species -the tiger shark and great white shark -axe considered dangerous to man. The tiger shark is implicated Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-47 ~ 2.5 Biological Resources in nearly all recorded shark attacks in H awaii. The Galapagos, oceanic whitetip, and shortfin mako have been implicated in serious a nd unprovoked, but generally non-fatal attacks, while O the grey reef and scalloped hammerhead may attack if provoked (DAR 1993). Inshore species Big nosed shark Carcharhinur altimur Blacktip shark Carcharhinur melanopte~ue' Blackdp reef shark Carcharhinur melanopterur Galapagos shark Carcharhinurgalapagenir Grey reef shark Carcharhinur amblyrhynchor O Sandbar shark Carcharhinurplumbeur Scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini Smooth hammerhead shuk Splryrna ;ygaena Tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier ~ Whitetip reef shark Tnaenodon oberur Oceanic species Blue shark Prionaceglauca Common Chxesher shark Alopiar vupinur Cookiecutter shark Irirliur brarilz~eruir Megamouth shark Megacharma pelagior Oceanic whitetip shark Carcharhinur longimanur shortfin mako shark Irurur ozyrinchur Q SIlky shark Carcharhinur falciformu' Whale shark I~hincodon typur White shark Carcharhinur carchariar Because of the danger that sharks pose to ocean recreation users, concerns have been raised regarding activities that may alter their natural behavior. The State of Hawaii prohibits the feeding of sharks for the purpose of shark platform tours and a federal regulation to ban [his' practice has been incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and O Conservation Act (MSA). Currently, two shark tour operators have platforms in a specific location in the federal waters (i. e., 3 nm from shore) on the North Shore of Oahu. Prior to the passage of this new federal law Qanuary 2007), the operators Eed the sharks, which became habituated to the activity (North Shore Shark Adventures 2006). Interestingly, different species of shark visit the platforms at different times of the day, with sandbar and tiger sharks generally occurring in the early morning, and Galapagos sharks arriving in the ~ late morning to early afternoon. Late afternoon tours generally experienced the fewest numbers of sharks. While public opposition to these tours has been voiced due to concerns O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-48 2.5 Biological Resources ~ Eor swimmers and surfers, no studies have been done and no data link this activity to any altered behavior beyond the direct visiting of the platforms. Looking at the experience of K}3WF, public concern over altered shark behavior was also raised for a perceived threat that their aquaculture platforms would create. KB\X/F countered that if sharks were actually attracted to the platforms; it would pull them further offshore and ostensibly would provide Eood, which would make them less of a threat to swimmers and surfers (I~WF 2003). 1n the three years of operation, sharks have been seen regularly by Q KBWF divers. During a period of high seas in November 2005, divers were unable to tend to the platforms for a few days, and dead fish accumulated at the bottom of the platforms. 'this likely attracted sharks to the platforms, including one threatening tiger shark. After many failed attempts to lure or scare the shark away, KBWF was required to kill the shark in order to maintain the safety of the divers tending the platforms (KBWF 2006). This incident 0 has led KBWF to work with the DAR and shark experts to develop a mitigation strateg}' in the event of a recurrence. "1'o minimize potential impacts, the I-Iawaii Oceanic Technology will implement a shark safety plan as part of this project. Sharks are undergoing worldwide declines for a number of reasons, including the desire fox O shark as a consumable (either the shark fm market or fox shark meat); as a result of bycatch from either recreational fishing (e.g., hunting) or other fishing (e.g., trawler nets, on longline hooks, or gill nets that are set for tuna or swordfish): from pollution; or from commercial uses of shark skin, cartilage, etc. There are no enforceable international regulations reducing ongoing overharvesting. In some parts of the world, certain shark species are currently C considered functionally extinct because they are ecologically no longer able to play a role in the marine ecosystem (McCosker 2007). Sharks of the eastern Pacific are among the most threatened regionally (McCosker 2007). Deep Water Coral. A complete census of all of the known deep-water precious coral beds was conducted in 2000 and 2001. This included submersible-supported surveys of the ~ Keahole Point bed and surrounding area located at 19° 46' N, 156° O6' W. This bed is more than 20 miles from the Proposed Action site and approximately 5 miles from the Alternative 2 site. In 2000, researchers surveyed 16,000 square kilometers of seafloor off Keahole Point at a depth of 1,181 to 1,591 feet (360 to 485 meters). In 2001, the team returned to the same area and surveyed 24,500 square kilometers of seafloor in 1,246 to 1,483 feet (380 to 452 E meters) of water (Grigg 2002). Two species of deep-water coral, Corallium regale and Gerardia sp. (red and gold coral, respectively), were found in a patchy distribution at a depth of 1,247 to 1,476 feet (380 to 450 meters). The precious coral bed off Keahole Point has been estimated at 0.96 square kilometer. 1'he roughly equivalent numbers of young and old gold coral colonies found at Keahole Point suggest healthy recmitment to the population. Based C on radiocarbon dating (Roark et al. 2006), a typical one-inch-diameter Gerardia is approximately 800 years old. Gold coral samples collected from the Keahole Point bed ranged in age from 450 to 2,742 years. ~X/hile the dives focused on surveying the known precious coral beds in the area and were of limited duration (8 hours each), no benthic macroEauna was observed below these depths and only a Eew bottomfish were seen during C the dives. Two sets of t~vo additional dives each were conducted at the Keahole Point bed in October 2004, and focused on paleoclimatology and macroinvertebrate-associated species Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-49 ~o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~Q ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 2.5 Biological Resources (HURL, pers. comm.). As with the 2000-2001 dices, deep sea corals occurred in sparse numbers and were confined to a specific depth. "At depths below about 1200 m (3,937 Et), the bottom consisted mainly of sandy silty carbonate muds and silty carbonate muds with occasional basaltic boulders." Benthic organisms were first seen shallower than 800 m with increased abundance at depths of 400 m (HURL, dive logs PV-592 through PV-595). Do/pi4ios. Of the nonendangered cetaceans two species, the bottlenose dolphin (Turriopr trzrncatu,r) and spinner dolphin (Stenella longirortri.r), axe known year-round residents of the Hawaiian Islands. Bottlenose dolphins arc widely distributed throughout the world ut tropical and warm temperate waters. They are not considered threatened or endangered under the ESA or depleted under the MMPA. Due to their isolation and the lack of sightings between the Hawaiian and eastern tropical Pacific populations, the Hawaiian bottlenose dolphins are considered a separate stock. This species is primarily coastal, occurring from Hawaii to I{ure Atoll. There are an estimated 743 bottlenose dolphins within 28.7 miles (25 nautical miles) of the main Hawaiian Islands. As waters beyond 28.7 miles (25 nautical miles) of the coast or the waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) were not surveyed, this number is considered an underestimate of the population size (NOAA Fisheries 2006 a). There have been three documented strandings in the Hawaiian Islands, with the most recent in 1998 due Co an entanglement in a mooring line off the coast of Maui. Spinner dolphins are widely distributed throughout the world in tropical and warm temperatc waters. They are not considered threatened or endangered under the ESA or depleted under the MMPA. The Hawaiian spinners belong to a stock that is separate Erom those involved in the tuna purse seine fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific. This stock is common and abundant throughout the Hawaiian archipelago. The best available estimate of abundance fox the Hawaiian stock of the spinner dolphin is 2,805 individuals (CV = 0.66) (Carretta et al. 2005). Spinner dolphins occur in both oceanic and coastal environments. Most sightings of this species have been associated with inshore waters, islands, or banks (Perrin and Gilpatxick 1994). While sightings in offshore waters axe infrequent, some groups of spinner dolphins have been seen in the channels behveen islands and in other offshore waters around the main Hawaiian Islands (Mobley et al. 2000). Spinner dolphins are expected to occur in shallow-water (164 feet [50 meters] or less) resting areas throughout the middle of the day, moving into deep waters offshore during the night to feed. Surveys were conducted in six areas, four inshore and two offshore. There is one inshore study area extending to 100 fathoms that is located near the Proposed Action site from Malae Point south to Puako. Another inshore smdy area covers the area by Keahole Point out to 100 fathoms. One offshore smdy area includes the area of the Alternative 2 site off Keahole Point (Ostman- Lind et al. 2004). The closest known resting area to the Proposed Action site is considered a "secondary" resting site at Honokoa Ba}', located about five miles southeas[ of the Proposed Action site. Ostman-Lind states that, "it is notable that no critical resting area is known for the Kohala coast, from Puako north" (Ostman-Lind 2004). Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Drag Environmental Impact Statement 2-50 2.5 Biological Resources ~ The closest known prunary resting areas to the Alternative 2 site is located at Makako Bay, where dolphins were reported to rest in an area within 75 m from shore during the 2004 study, and between 200-300 m offshore in earlier studies (Ostman-Lind 2004). North of ~ ICeahole Point, schools usually gather on the shallow shelf off Mahai`ula in mid-morning, presumably after feeding on the grounds. The school then moves along the reef edge, parallel to the shore and south into Makako Bay. Around 11 Ati1, the}' usually arrive in the shallow (less than 82 feet [25 meters]) sandy area in the most protected part of the bay, where they may spend the next hvo to three hours resting. The movement out of the bay, after the rest ~ period, usually follows a "zig-zag pattern" (Norris et al. 1994) of back and forward movements as the school moves along the coast, perhaps fox several kilometers, before moving out to deeper water. The pattern of movement into the rest areas is also highly variable. Norris and Dohl (1980) ~ found the "movement toward the coast may be a general one and not necessarily pointed to a precise rest cove," with a number of different schools entering I{ealakekua Bay at different times and from different directions. This led the researchers to conclude that "the bays and coves used Eor rest periods may not necessarily be the duect target of daily inshore movement," and that the location of the rest area is selected on an opportunistic basis. There O would appear, therefore, to be no obligation on the part of the dolphins to use a particular rest area, ox to adhere to a particular group. Both the bottlenose dolphins and the spinner dolphins are year-round residents in the waters off the island of Hawaii. In addition to spinner and bottlenose dolphins, the PaciEtc waters and coastlines of the Hawaiian Islands provide habitat for a variety of other marine wildlife. Twenty-two marine ~ mammal species, including six endangered whales and the endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Monachur.rcbauin,rlrrnda), inhabit these waters (NOAA Fisheries 2006c). Numbers and types of animals are not consistent, as the distribution and abundance of both marine mammals and sea turtles in Hawaiian waters vary seasonally, from nearshore to offshore, and spatially (i.e., from island to island and between different sides of the islands) (Calambokidis et al. 1998; Mobley et al. 2001), but overall these waters provide high quality habitat for numerous marine mammal species, paxdculaxly larger odontocetes (toothed whales). Several non ESA- listed but MMPA-listed marine mammals known as odontocetes are found in Hawaiian waters and may occur in the project waters. These include pygmy (Kogia brevicep~) and dwarf sperm whales, killer whales (Ordnu.r area), false killer whales (Preudorca crarriden.r), pygmy killer ~ whales (Fere,ra attenuate), pilot whales, (Globicepbala macrorhynchu.r), melon-headed whales (Peponocephala elects), rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanenar), and several species of spotted dolphins, the most common of which is Stenella attenuate. Dolphin species that axe most likely to be found in and around the project area include bottlenose dolphins, spotted dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins, and false killer whales, though other species could easily occur. The ~ bottlenose, spotted, and rough-toothed dolphins and false killer whales have all been observed in the project area or in other offshore waters of the Kona Coast. Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species Humpback Whales (Megapteta novaeangliae). The Proposed Action site and the 0 Alternative 2 site are both located outside of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Maxine Sanctuary (I-IIH~C~NMS). The Proposed Action site is at approximately the Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-51 O O 2.5 Biological Resources 220 fathom (1,320 feet) contour line. The Alternative 2 site is at approximately the 916 Eathom (5,496 feet) contour line. The sanctuary boundary extends west from Keahole Point, ~ along the 100 fathom line ro Upolu Point, the northern most point of the Big Island in North Kohala. An estimated 2,000 to 5,000 humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) come to Flawai`i each year between November and May, a significam portion of the total North Pacific populatio^ of 6,000 to 10,000 whales (HIHWNMS 2003). Adult humpbacks are approximately 45 feet long and weigh 40 to 45 tons. Calves, all of which are born in 0 Hawaiian waters, can be 14 feet long and two tons at birth. Humpbacks have c-cry long pectoral fins, equal to approximately one-third of their body length. Ffumpback whales occur frequently over the winter months. Aerial surveys indicate that the whales mainly inhabit leeward coasts, in waters shallower than 100 fathoms. Ponds containing a calf seemed to be closer to shore. FIighest densities of whale population was identified to be near Keahole ~ Point, and north of Kawaihae Harbor. Kawaihae Bay is considered to represent important humpback whale habitat. Considering how wide ranging humpback whales can be, it is possible that they traverse the Proposed Action site or the Alternative 2 site. Hawaiian Monk Sea/s (Monachus schauinslandi). An estimated 1,252 Hawaiian monk ~ seals (Monacbur rchauinrlanriz) occur throughout the archipelago, with approximateh~ 90 percent living in the NWHI. The best estimate of the population in the MHI is 52 individuals, based on aerial surveys in 2001 (Baker and Johanos 2003). Most of these seals were observed on Niihau and Kauai, although tare sightings have occurred in the waters off the Kona Coast. During two four-day periods in 2000 and 2001, NMFS conducted aerial and O ground surveys. In this, the most complete stock assessment of monk seals in the MHI, onl}' one monk seal was obserned in the waters off the Island of Hawaii. In addition, one monk seal was born c,~n FIawai`i in each of these years. Monk seals axe curious animals and often inspect untended nets and marine debris, which has led to the deaths of numerous seals over the years (Nitta and Henderson 1993). ~ Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas). Green sea turtles are abundant in the waters aEf the Kona Coast. While total population estimates are very difficult to determine, it appears from the steady increase in nesting females at the primary rookery at French Frigate Shoals in the NWHI that this species is reaching carrying capacity (Balazs and Chaloupka 2004). In addition to the natural population at ehe Kona Coast, since 1990 the Mauna Lani Resort and ~ NOAA have released over one hundred juvenile turtles that were raised for two to three years at Sea Life Park on Oahu. Many of these turtles have been released carrying a satellite transmitter that has provided a greater understanding of their movements (Figure 2.5-1). While some travel great distances around the islands and across deep water, they all spend most of their time in shallow foraging grounds (Balazs 1994). d Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project- Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-52 2.5 Biological Resources ~ Figure 2.5-1. Movement of aSatellite-Tagged Green Turtle. Mo r turtle 70 N 19N Q a Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbdcata). Of all of the sea turtles worldwide, the endangered Hawksbill turtle is considered the most reef-associated and is truly a coastal species. While much less common in Hawaiian waters than the green turtle, resident hawksbills nest in the MHl. At most, 30 Eemales nest in any given year at 10 beach sites found exclusively on the islands of Hawaii, i~4aui, Molokai, and Oahu (Balazs et al. 1998). A major portion of the nesting occurs on Kamehame Beach on the southeastern coast of the Island of 1-lawai`i. The only available satellite tracking is of nvo females in 19)5. The data showed that both mrtles traveled along the coast 180 miles to feeding grounds o^ the Hamakua coast, where they remained until they returned to Kamehame Beach to nest again. There is no sigrtificant evidence that this species, once hatchlings arc settled to the reef, ever returns to the open sea (ICinan 200'7). Other species of sea nietle, including the Leatherback (DermocGefyt corfarea) and loggerhead (Cnrekto cart#a), are rare visitors to the ,islands, with one and three sightings, respectively, ever in the IIHI (N011A Fisheries and USFWS 1998). Essential Fish Habitat Essenrjal fish habitat (EFH) is designated for all species that ace managed by federal fisheq- management plans. EL'H for precious corals includes all known beds. Off the Kona Coast ~ there are two beds, the I<eahole Point red and gold coral conditional bed and the Miloli`i- South point black coral bed. F_ssendal fish habitat for shallow-water and deep-water bottomfish species includes the seaftoor in watets between 0 and 131 feet (0 to 40 meters) depth. Due to the broad definition of EFH, NMFS created the designation "Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC)" in order to provide a better understanding of key habitats within the required definition. HAPC foe bottomfish is all seaftoor between 13] and 918.64 feet (40 and 280 meters). Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-53 O ~o ~Q ~~ ~Q Q ~Q Q 2.5 Biological Resources Critical habitat, areas of land that are considered necessary for an endangered (or threatened) species to recover, is defined for all species protected under the ESA. Of the above- mentioned species, none have critical habitat designated in the main Hawaiian Islands. Humpback whales have no critical habitat designation, and critical habitat for monk seals and green sea turtles occurs only in the NWHI. The Proposed Action site occurs in 1,320 feet (402 meters) of water, 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) from land and the Alternative 2 site is in 5,800 feet (1,768 meters) of water, also 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) from land. The primary operating site at either location will be approximately 220 acres of open ocean water. The Eocus of the I-Iawaii Open-ocean Aquaculture Research Program (HOARP) (Ostrowski and Helsley 2003) was to establish which, if any, of the above concerns are real in open circulation tropical conditions. Routine observations of water quality, health of the ecosystem outside the cages, interactions with protected species, and changes in the benthic assemblage were made to assess these potential impacts of open ocean aquaculmre in tropical oceanic settings. Observations over the past 6 years demonstrated that there was no measurable change to the water quality at the site. Observations of chlorophyll-a and turbidity suggest there was no important change in phytoplankton abundance near the cages, or that the change was so small that it could not be distinguished Erom the natural background variability. The only change in the benthos was an increase in the abundance Capetella capilata and Neantbes arenaceodenlata, known indicator species of organic enrichment. The increase in abundance of these two species, rarely observed in the oligotrophic sediments of the offshore, suppresses the abundance of the more common organisms that characterize the normal assemblage. This change in abundance provides evidence for a local species diversity change under the farm operational site. This change, however, was shown to be entirely reversible in time periods of less than a year of production, and thus it should not be considered to be a long-term detrimental impact. Observations of environmental variables were made around a research site at the Cates Q International, Inc. offshore fish farm, about 3.22 km (2 miles) south of Ewa Beach, Oahu for the past 6 years. Initially, these were simply water quality measurements and assessment of changes in the micro-benthos beneath the cages and at control stations some 400 m up and down stream that were made as part of a set of proof-of-feasibility experiments. The research at the experimental site was transferred to [he Earm site in 2001 when the farm ~ commenced operation. Based on knowledge of currents on site (see appendix Current Stud}' Report) and in the general area, and an analysis of the environmental monitoring of the KBWF operation (KBWF 2006) and HOARP, the deep depth and huge quantities of water that will move Q through the sites will dilute all generated nutrients and particulate matter to natural levels by the edge of the zone of mixing, which is ocean lease site to a depth of 150m. Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-54 2.5 Biological Resources ~ While Humpback whales and green sea turtles will likely transit through the area, the distance D from shore and depth of the sites is well beyond the ocean area within 100 fathoms depth where a majority of humpback whales are found. This also removes the potential of the platforms causing a bottleneck in migration patterns. The platforms will most likely act as Fish Aggregation Devices (FADS), primarily attracting ~ baitftsh and predatory pelagic species. The sites are not known to be an important foraging area for seabirds. 2.5.2 Environmental Consequence Impact Methodology ~ Potential direct and indirect impacts on biological resources were analyzed for general biological resources, along with sensitive species and any biologicall}' sensitive ucas, designated critical habitat, or EFH. For this analysis, specific potential impacts on biological resources are based on the following: a • Comparing the location of such resources in relation to the physical locations of the proposed actions to determine potential direct and indirect vnpacts on these resources; • Examining the types and intensity of activities proposed in each location to ~ determine the potential for impacts on these resources; • Relative importance or value of the resource affected, for example its legal, commercial, recreational, ecological, or scientific value; • The resource's relevant occurrence in the region; • Sensitivity of the resource to the proposed action; • Anticipated physical extent of [he potential impact; and • Anticipated duration of the ecological ramifications of the potential impact. Direct impacts may be short term or long term, depending on how the biological resources ~ are impacted during the course of the project implementation and operation. Direc[ negative impacts result when biological resources or critical habitats are altered, destroyed, or removed during the course of project implementation. Indirect negative impacts to biological resources ma}' occur when project-related activities ~ result in environmental changes that indirectly influence the survival, distribution, or abundance of species. Examples of indirect negative impacts may include effects of noise, presence of chemical contamination, decline in water quality, or incidence of human activity levels that may disturb or harm wildlife. t-tawati Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-55 6 i O 2.5 Biological Resources 0 ~O ~O ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Q Q Factors Considered for Impacts Analysis Impacts were assessed based on whether the proposed action would result in the following: • If a population of a threatened, endangered, regulated, or other sensitive species was adversely affected by reduction in numbers or b}' alteration in behavior, reproduction, or survival; • The "take" of a listed or sensitive resource, such as a threatened or endangered species as defined in the ESA or a species protected by the MMPA; • Loss of a substantial number of individuals ox any of a nonlisted species ox loss that could affect abundance or diversity of that species beyond normal variability; • Substantial adverse effect on a species, natural community, or habitat that is specifically recognized as biologically significant in local, state, or federal policies, statutes, or regulations; • A jeopardy biological opinion by the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries; • A reduction of the population of a sensitive species; • An adverse effect on EFH; • Interference with the movement of any native resident fish or migrator}' wildlife or migratory wildlife corridors; • Confect with Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program policies; • Introduction of ox increases in the prevalence of undesirable nonnative species; • Allows biological resources to be exploited in ways inconsistent with the plans and policies of the NMS program ox that would otherwise violate the NMS or NOAH program regulations; ox • Long-term loss or impairment of a substantial portion of local habitat (specics- dependent). Summary of Impacts Table 2.5-1 summarizes impacts on biological resources. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-56 2.5 Biological Resources Table 2.5-1 Summary of Potential Biological Resource Impacts Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Floia Q Q Q Q Terrestrial fauna Q Q Q Q itlaiine bcnthic organisms Q Q Q Q Fislies (excluding sharks) Q Q ~ Q Rate, endangered, or threatened I. ~ectes O Q O Q Humpback whales (~ !~ Q Q Shaiks Q Q Q Q Spinner and bottlenose dolphins and,large odontocctes Q O O Q In cases when there would be beneficial and adverse impacts, both axe shown on this table LEGEND = Significant impact + = Beneficial impact Q = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact N/r1 = Not applicable Q = Less than significant impact Q = No unpact Proposed Action - Malae Point No Impact Flora. There is no terrestrial flora or marine macroflora in the proposed lease areas. As the seafloor is at 1,320 feet (402 meters) at the proposed site, and is 5,800 feet (1,768 meters) at the alternative site, the only algae would be the fouling on the platforms and associa[cd apparatus, whose growth would be assisted by the increased oxgaruc loading within the platforms. This fouling growth is scheduled to be regularly cleaned as part of biweekl}' platform maintenance. This growth will not create a significant impact as long as weather conditions and other factors allowed the dally cleaning to take place. As is normal practice in the open ocean aquaculmre industry, the growth will be air dried above the water for four hours in sunlight, and allowed to Eall into the water, where it will be eaten by fish in the area, ox decompose as it falls through the water column. Terrestrial fauna. The proposed action would not impact terrestrial fauna. This area is not considered important fox bixdlife, and the subsurface placement of the platforms would eliminate any potential impacts. Marine Benthic O<ganisms. The primary benthic organisms of concern in Hawaii axe the entire coral reef ecosystem. The coral reef is sensitive to changes in water quality, especially from the increase in nutrients and particulate matter. Nutrients can cause algal blooms that cover corals and other benthic organisms. Extremely high levels of particulate matter can 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-57 6 ~ 2.5 Biological Resources settle on the coral. Both have the effect of reducing the amoun[ of sunlight that reaches the coral, which can ultimately kill the coral. Wlvle these axe important concerns, any impact (] from these platforms on the reef is very unlikely. Water gnaliry testing of the two existing operations, CII and HI3WF, indicate only slightly increased levels on nutrients and particulate matter directly down curxem of the platforms (see Section 2.4, Water Quality), reaching background levels within 99 Eeet (30 meters) of the platforms. In addition, surveys conducted by the State Division of Aquatic Resources biologists on the pristine reef duectly inshore Q from the KBWF site (0.5 mile [0.8 kilometer] offshore) showed no significant change in either coral or reef fish abundance (http://www.kona-kampachi.com). Given that these platforms will be 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) Erom the seaward edge of the nearest reef, no impact on the reef community is expected. Q As with marine algae, there will likely be a fouling growth of marine benthic fauna on the platforms and associated appaxams. This would probably include bivalves (several species of mussels and oysters [Ptexia and Pinctada spp]), corals (Pocillopoxa and Poxites), sea urchins (Ecbinotbrix calamarir), nudibranchs (Sfylocheilur longicauda), and sponges. These would all settle out of the plankton. No measurable impacts are expected on adjacent communities. The O presence of these organisms would primarily be a function of the presence of the artificial substrates, rather than any other perturbation to the environment. Grazing and browsing fishes ma}' remove much of this fouling, but occasionally divers would need to scrape occluding fouling from these surfaces. Some of this fouling would fall to the bottom, and become part of the general benthic processes of detritivores and decomposers in the soft O substrate of the deep sea. The amount that would reach the barren seafloor would spread across a wide area and would be inconsequential to this habitat Evidence from the two existing aquaculture sites, which occur in less than 200 feet (61 meters) of water, suggests no major change in the diversity of benthic organisms. "1'he OOA operation off `Ewa Beach, Oahu experienced periodic increases in abundance of polychaete worms (doruilleidt, of the genus Ophryotrocha, and capitellids) underneath the platform but also showed occasional Q periodic increases in abundance of benthic detrital feeders at the control sites, well removed from the platform area (Ostrowski et al. 2001). If these sites, occurring in 200 feet (61 meters) of water, show minima] impact on the benthic habitat, it is surmised that the potential impact on the seafloor at the proposed site (1,320 feet [402 meters]) depth or more so at the alternative site (5,800 feet [1,768 meters})is so slight as to be not quantifiable. Less Than Significant Impacts Fishes. Fish may be attracted to the sites for a number of reasons: the fouling on the platform, the occasional release of small quantities of uneaten food from the platform, the scent of dead fish from inside the platform before they are removed, the visibility of fish ~ inside the platform, and the aggregative nature of fish in open water, as known and documented with FADS. While observations from the `Ewa Beach platform experiment indicate that the variety of reef fishes around the platform changes over time, it is highly doubtful that more than the occasional reef fish will ever be observed at these platforms. The distance from the proposed site to the nearest reef (approximately 3 miles, 2.6 nautical ~ miles), the depth of the water (1,320 feet [402 meters]), and the length of time they would have to be in open water avoiding predators to make it to these platforms makes their presence very unlikely. This is also likely for the alternative site, which is also approximately 3 ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-58 2.5 Biological Resources ~ miles (2.G nautical miles) from the nearest reef, and in 5,800 Eeet (1,768meters) of water.. Similarly, while coastal pelagic species (e.g., `opelu, Decaptenu macarellur) have congregated around KBWF platforms, to the extent that fishermen are able to target them in the area (N. ~ Sims, pers. comm.), these species would be too far Erom their natural environment at this location and would likely no[ remain near the platforms for any duration. These platforms axe expected to attract carnivorous pelagic fish, such as kawakawa (~uthymnur alletteratur), yellowfin ahi (Thuumur alabacarer), ono (Acanthocyfnlrm rolandn), and ~ mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurur). These are targeted by the trolling fishery, which tends to follow the 30 - 35 fathom contour parallel to the shoreline. Across the state, FADS increase catch rates for those who use them. This is evidenced in part by the fact that the State of Hawaii has installed 57 offshore FADS around the main Hawaiian Islands, with nine between Kawaihae to the north and Kauna Point to the south off the west coast of the O Island of Hawaii. According to KBWF documents, Fishing activity has increased in the "formerly barren stretch of water, with ono and `opelu fishermen, in particular, profiting from the FAD effects of our facility" (KBWF 2006). Given that the platforms of this project will be placed 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) from shore and 180 feet (55 meters) below the surface, it is possible that the species and overall number of fish attracted to the platforms O will be quite different than that experienced by KBWF but are nevertheless expected to result in an increase in aggregating fish. Hawaii Oceanic Technology intends to provide local fishermen similar access to the area as that provided by KBWF. Impacts to fish axe expected to be less than significant The catch wIll likely increase in the project axes, but it will be within the natural variance of catch rates. a While the proposed site is about a mile away and in waters 300 feet deeper than the deepest waters targeted by bottom fish fishermen (Fukuyama 2008), and in waters about 400 Eeet deeper than the bottom fish designated habitat area of particular concern, fishers interviewed expressed concern about the potential impact of the Occansphere platforms on the distribution of bottom fish (Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). They Eelt it would have an Q adverse impact on the bottom fish fishery. To address this concern, analys'is' was done of the evidence of impacts on the benthic envzronment at the two existing aquaculmxe sites, which occur in less than 200 feet (61 meters) of water, which suggests no major change in the diversity of benthic organisms. If O these sites, occurring in 200 feet (61 meters) of water, show minimal impact on the benthic habitat, it is surmised that the potential impact on the seafloor at the proposed site (1,320 feet [402 meters]) depth is so slight as to be not quantifiable. In addition, a water quality model was used to determine at what point ambient levels will be reached fox water quality parameters. The zone of mixing model shows that by 150 meters below the surface where O the Oceansphere is located, water parameters are at ambient levels. See the section above on water quality Fox more information. Based on these analyses, the impact of the Proposed Action on bottomfish is anticipated to be less than significant. Thcre is also recognition by these bottom fish fishers that they were not sure if there would p be an effect or not, and if the effect would be beneficial or not, until a platform was deployed and they could see any changes happening to their fishery. The fishers also noted Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-59 Q 0 2.5 Biological Resources that the bottom Esh fishery has been in serious decline for years with longer periods of closure every }'ear (Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). Maintaining ongoing dialog with the ~'i ~ fishers would be a useful way to address this potential issue. Rare, Endangered, or Threatened Species. There axe a few conceivable ways for open ocean fish farming to negatively impact rare, threatened, endangered, or protected species: the project may present a significant obstruction to animal movements, the animals may ~ become entangled in the platforms or moorings, ox the animal's natural behavior ma}' be altered, either in the short term or over time, by the b}'products of the presence of the platforms themselves or by the maintenance activities associated with the platforms. The relatively small size and specific attributes of the taut mesh platform design proposed ~ for this project suggest that the risk of negative impacts from obstruction to animal movements or from entanglements is negligible. There are no data available to support any conclusions on either short-term or long-term behacioxal impacts to larger marine wildlife speues. Q Monk seals have been observed in the waters off the Kona Coast, though infrequentl}', with at most one seal being observed in any of the surveys (Baker and Johanos 2004). Monk seals are curious animals and often inspect untended nets and marine debris, which has led to the deaths of numerous seals over the }'ears. The platforms proposed for this project are constructed with no loose netting or lines and a very small mesh size (0.25 inch across), © effectively eliminating this risk. Whlle still classified as threatened under the ESA, the green sea mrde (Chelonia mydar) is relatively abundant in the waters off Kona. The coral reef habitat is the primary foraging grounds for both adult and juvenile green turtles, and they genexall}' remain in the shallow coastal waters, both for shelter and refuge Eiom their primary predator, the shark. Adults will ~ swim across the open ocean 1,000 miles to French Frigate Shoals in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands to breed. It is during this migration that they are most likely to visit the proposed or alternative sites. It is highly doubtful that a turtle would linger in such a vulnerable habitat. Nevertheless, as with the monk seal, the taut and small mesh of the platforms will prevent the possibility of entanglement fox any migrating mrde. In addition to the green turtle, the ~ ram hawksbill (Eretmochelyr imbncata), lea[herback (Dermochely,r coria~ea), and loggerhead (Caretta caretxa) sea turtles may also encounter the platforms in the open sea, but the possibility of entanglement would be even less for these species, given the similar risk and rarity of occurrence in Hawaiian waters. Q Hatmpbaek whaler. While both the proposed and alternative site lie outside the boundaries of the HIHWNMS, whales transit the area during the winter. Concerns were raised during the development stage of this project regarding the whales' movement throughout the general area of the project ~ operations; usually following a longshore track (N-S) (Sarver and Sims 2003). As there are no mooring lines attaching these platforms to the seafloor, and given that the fast proposed site is in 1,320 feet (402 meters) of water and 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) from land, whle the p Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-60 2.5 Biological Resources E alternative is in 5,800 feet (1,768 meters), and 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) from land, whales will easily be able to move around the platforms. The only real loss of habitat for the whales is the waters within the submerged platform from which they are excluded. The percentage of habitat loss from the entire sanemary is difficult to determine, as the total available habitat in the sancmary cannot be readily calculated. However, the percentage of habitat lost from one kilometer of sanctuary waters, for example, can be estimated. Twelve submersible platforms will each occupy a volume of 3,600 cubic 6 meters Eox a total of 43,200 cubic meters. One kilometer (0.6 mile) of sancmary waters (measured along the coastline) with an average depth of 50 fathoms (around 100 meters) and a width (from coastline to the proposed and alternative sites) of around 5 kilometers equates to a total volume of 500 million cubic meters. The loss of habitat from the presence of the platforms is therefore 0.0086 percent of the avaiable habitat in this one kilometer of Q sanctuary coastline. The loss of habitat is equivalent in volume to the loss of habitat from the displacement of a three 75,000 metric ton vessels. Gabxiele, et al 2003 note that "Although Kawaihae is the commercial port for ~~est Hawaii, it has relatively low levels of vessel traffic, slowly increasing in primarily tourism and ~ recreation sectors. New proposed commercial uses of nearshore waters, including a proposed aquaculmre facility, would contribute an unprecedented steady stream of traffic, as well increasing the risk of entanglement and marine pollution" The Proposed Action mitigates the potential impacts identified above by locating the d platforms away from the nearshore waters, to avoid areas frequented by marine mammals, and avoid areas where there is already trolling and fishing traffic. Given the lack of mooring lines and the taut small-mesh platforms, there is no risk of entanglement by whales in the platforms. Data from NMFS marine mammal stock assessments and strandings confirm that entanglement problems for whales aze due to slack-line fishing gear or extensive loose-mesh fishing nets. Q As with spinner dolphins (discussed below), the major entanglement concerns for humpbacks and other whales are from floating gill nets, drift nets, long-lines, and slack lines, such as crab pot float Gnes. A comprehensive review of the potential for entanglements by humpbacks or other whales conducted by USAC1/ for the University of New Hampshire ~ Open Ocean Aquacultuxe Demonstration project (Celikkol 1999) indicated that almost all entanglements were due to fishing gear, such as cod traps, gill nets, weirs, and seines. Amongst al] these observations, them is no record from any US aquaculture operation of entanglement of humpback whales, or other marine mammals, in the taut moorings or net panels of fish platforms. The risks of entanglement for the proposed project is even further Q reduced by the lack of mooring lines, the amount of open ocean in which the whales can maneuver around the platforms, the spherical shape of the platforms, and the depth at which the platforms are stationed. By contrast, submersible platforms are designed to keep fish enclosed within the platform. Q 'T'here are no flat walls, funnels, or bottlenecks in the platform designs. The platform surface is primarily taut mesh, more akin to a vessel hull than to a transparent, yielding gill-net. The Hawaii Oceanic 1-ethnology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-61 Q 0 2.5 Biological Resources platforms axe streamlined to reduce drag through the water, and they are strutted to maintain very high tension on the net material. The platforms present a hard rounded surface to an C5 approaching animal, which would naturally tend to deflect the animal in one direction ox the other, rather than halt their progress, as might a flat wall or funnel net. To visually orienting marine mammals such as humpbacks, this mesh would probably appear to present almost a solid surface. The more appropriate comparison would therefore be the interaction between anchored ships and humpback whales, rather than fishing gear and whales. Celikkol (1999) analyzed the entanglement risk of various components of Sea Stations OOA platforms (including the mooring aria}', which is not relevant for the proposed action) and concludes: "The platforms (themselves) do not impose any known whale entanglement risk." ~ For humpback whales, it would still be important to perform any in-water large maintenance or construction activities outside of any seasonal windows. Spinner and batrleno,re dolpbin,r and other large odontacete,r. O The Proposed Action site does not appear to be near any significant resting site or foraging site for the spinner dolphin(SSenella longiro,rtrzr). As discussed above in the description of the biological resources, during the day, the spinner dolphins rest in areas less than SOm deep. At night, they feed in waters up to 200 meters. Both the Proposed Action site and the Alternative 2 site are much deeper than the waters where the spinner dolphins have been O observed. In addition to spinner dolphins, the surveys from 1989 - 1912, and the surve}'s conducted in 2003 (see Ostman-Lind 2004), observed other delphinid species including Spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuate), short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala Macrorhynchus), pygmy killer whales (Feresa attenuate) and bottlenose dolphins (luxsiops truncaatus). Spotted dolphins ~ were observed feeding several kilometers offshore in waters over one km deep. Short-finned pilot whales and pygmy killer whales were observed to be present only spoxadicall}', and further offshore. Bottlenose dolphins were observed in small schools in waters less than SOm deep, and are known to be very opportunistic in their feeding behavior (Ostman-Lind 2004). These toothed whale species, which forage on smaller fish fox prey, such as those that ~ would be contained in the proposed project platforms, are known from and documented to occur in project area waters (NOAA Hawaii Humpback Yearly ~y/hale Watch). The foraging movement patterns of spinner dolphins demonstrate that they could venture from their near shore resting waters to the proposed or alternative sites, particularly if either ~ site becomes a FAD, which is likely, Eor prey species. Other dolphin species would most likely be drawn as well, as the platforms would be a novel object and are likely to be an attractant to some degree. If sharks are drawn to the platforms, and dolphin species are also attracted to the platforms, and both scenarios axe likely, then the likelihood of these different species being located in the same area at the same time would increase as a result of the ~ platforms. This in tum could lead to increased predation on dolphins or other marine mammals in the area. There is a degree of uncertainty with regards to the severity (intensity and fcequenc}') of this collocation of predator (shark)/prey (marine mammal) species. A pod p Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-62 2.5 Biological Resources E of healthy adult dolphins visiting the sites can likely defend themselves from any sharks in the area given that the terrain is open sea. However, single ox juvenile animals may be at risk. Spinner dolphins have been occasionally anecdotally observed traveling through the existing KBWF site, apparently neither avoiding nor being attracted to the platforms (KBWF 2006). However, no systematic surveys have been done to document the presence or absence of dolphins and other toothed whale species, or potential increases in dolphin numbers or residency around the KBWF platforms. While concerns were previously raised by the public ~ over the proximity of the KBWF site to the spinner dolphin migratory route, as well as their resting area in Makako Bay, in the nearly three years of operation, there appears to be no adverse impact from the current farm. To further mitigate the potential Eor entanglement, the Proposed Action includes an ~ advanced platform design which does not have mooring fines; therefore the proposed operations do not pose any risk to these animals from entanglement. Resting spinner dolphin schools usually remain in sheltered waters between 80 and 160 feet (25 and 50 meters) deep, more than 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) from the proposed project sites. Given the proposed open ocean location for the alternative site, and the mostly pelagic location of the proposed site, it is anticipated that effects from the project may be less than significant In order to verify that these conclusions are accurate over time, and that no significant adverse impacts to MMPA-protected marine species will occur, the project proponent will include certain monitoring practices, as delineated below. It is not known if foraging behavior will be impacted in the short or long term. It is also not known what the long-term impact will be on marine mammal species from shark presence that is considered likely to increase. There is a potential for beneficial impacts to occur if fish prey aggregate under the platforms and thus foraging becomes more efficient fox spinner dolphins and other marine mammals. Tlus increase could offset any predation on dolphins or other species by sharks that would be attracted for the same reasons. ~ There is a negligible risk of entanglement by spinner dolphins ox other mazine mammals in the stretched mesh of the platforms. A comprehensive search of available records (NMFS Stock Assessments) and a xeciew of interactions between marine mammals and Hawai`i's fisheries (Nitta and Henderson 1993) all confirm that the major entanglement problems fox ~ small marine mammals axe fLOm slack-line fishing gear ox extensive, loose, large-mesh nets. Floating gill nets, drift nets, long-lines, and slack lines, such as crab pot float lines, represent the major entanglement concerns fox marine mammals. Other dolphin species are also occasionally injured or hooked while taking bait or fish off fishing lines. Spinner dolphins are known to have become entangled in nets or net fragments, but the animals are only 0 vulnerable when there is no tension on the mesh. There are recent records of both bottlenose dolphins and common dolphins becoming entangled in the predator nets around tuna platforms in South Australia (an average of three entanglements per year: Kemper and Gibbs 2001; Wuxsig and Gaile}' 2002). However, these entanglements were exclusively in the large-mesh predator nets (mostly greater than 15 centimeters, or 6-inch mesh) that were set ~ in shallow water, so that the nets hung loosely at low tide. However, there is no record from Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-63 Q ~ 2.5 Biological Resources any US aquaculture operation of entanglement of dolphins or other marine mammals in the taut-net panels of fish platforms. Q' The South Australia dolphins discussed above were apparently attracted to the platforms by the whole pilchards that were fed to the tuna. The fish feed pellets planned in this proposed action would not have the same attraction to dolphins. Q` Cuxxendy there is no way to determine the effects on dolphins ox other free-ranging marine mammals (ox on large pelagic fish) of the visible presence of contained farmed large fish in the open sea, combined with the scent that will emanate from the platforms, particularly from dead fish (which has been shown in other OOA projects to attract sharks on the occasion when weather prevents daily cleanings). The Alternative 2 site, being further away ~ from Kawaihae Commercial Harbor than the Proposed ilction site, may undergo longer periods between cleanings during periods of inclement weather. Unties the MMPA, harassment is defined as "any act of pursuit, torment, ox annoyance which has the potential to injure a mazine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild" ~ (Level A Harassment) ox "has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breatlaing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering" (Level B Harassment). Dolphins or other marine mammal wildlife, of which there axe numerous species that would transit project area waters year round, could potentially be disturbed by either direct impacts ~ (increased shark presence, increased noise related to project actions and daily boat operations, ox other human related disturbances) or indirect impacts (water quality changes, ecosystem changes). Human-related disturbance, such as noise from project vessel operation, or incidental ship collisions, could affect marine mammal behavior. 'there may also be a cumulative impact on ~ marine wildlife from the platforms over time. The effect of disturbance, noise, and other manmade sounds on marine mammals can potentially have a harmful effect on marine organisms in a variety of ways. As with humans, an introduction of noise can cause stress, which can increase the risk of mortality in marine organisms. Exact reactions to noise depend on a variety of factors, including time of }'ear, behavioral ox reproductive state of an ~ individual species, ambient noise levels, etc. The daily magnitude and intensity of noise would be expected to change from normal conditions under the proposed action. However, the level of [he proposed activity is not expected to have a significant impact on marine mammals. ~ ~Uater Quality modeling discussed above indicates that ambient levels of water quality will be achieved by the edge of the zone of mixing, which is the ocean lease site to a depth of 150m. Consequently, there should be no negative impacts to marine mammals or other biological resources From water quality. Q Potential indirect impacts map occur to dolphins or other marine mammals as a result of die platform acting as a FAD, from increased human activity within or directly adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, from accidental releases of fuel, oil or lubricants used in vessels, or on ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-64 2.5 Biological Resources the platforms. Standard operating procedures, which include oil spill prevention and response training and equipment, as well as reporting requirements, will be used by the Company's aquaculmxe personnel to mitigate the risk of these accidental releases and the ''e7 potential negative environmental impact it could cause. In addition, because of the open ocean location of the project, level of use, and distance from shore, both the risk of these incidents and the impacts sustained if they occur are minimized. Since all outcomes on dolphins and other marine mammals are unknown at this point, as no ~` project of this scope has ever occurred in project waters or similar waters in the open ocean, and as no quantified data exist to support either argument, impacts are cautiously considered less than significant. A monitoring program will be established as part of this project to watch for any adverse affects that may occur. If any adverse affects are identified project operations will be modified to minimize those effects. Consultation with appropriate federal E agency officials will guide the protocol fox managing and monitoring an}' interactions behveen employees and marine mammals. Impacts axe expected to be less than significant with this monitoring program in place. Monitoring Program E • Monitoring by qualified observers, preferably by thud-party qualified biological resource personnel, of spinner dolphin and other marine mammal species (and sea turtles) in the area of the platforms would be required to ensure no deleterious effects of any kind result from interactions (particularly unforeseen) with the platforms. • Reports of all monitoring will be distributed to agency personnel and research groups. • Surveying should be done dail}' by cleaning and maintenance personnel of Hawaii Oceanic Technology, however, surveying also should be done at least once a week initially, with surveys decreasing in frequency once quantified data show less than C significant effects are occurring. • All on-site project personnel will be apprised of the status of any listed species potentially present in the project area and the protections afforded to those species under federal and state laws. • Local marine wildlife experts and agency personnel will be contacted and informed of the impending work that exceeds daily and routine maintenance; in addition, wildlife espexts and agency personnel must be immediately contacted in the event of any marine wildlife concerns, including collisions, strikes, or entanglements that may occur during the project. ~ • Preparation and presentation of a Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan will be incorporated into the project design. Shacks. In meetings with the public, special interest groups, and various other forums, there has often been concern expressed about the potential for the platforms of the proposed C operation to act as FADS and thus, via increasing fish species in a localized area, increasing the likelihood of sharks in the area. Although increasing fish species offers great potential Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-65 0 2.5 Biological Resources benefits to fishermen, as discussed above, it is also recognized that the FAD action of an OOA operation may attract sharks to the area. In addition, sharks may be drawn to the ~ platforms because of a greater availability of food (either from the excess fish food, from the visibility of the fish inside the platforms, from the scent of dead ftsh in the platforms, or because of the greater biomass of other fish outside the platform). The impact on biological resources or on humans Erom increased shark presence in the location of the proposed project would have to be studied and potentially mitigated. \X/hile it is possible that iE sharks are drawn to the platforms, it could lead to increased predation on dolphins or other marine mammals in the area, there axe no recorded instances. The likelihood of different species being located in the same area at the same time would increase as a result of the presence of the platforms and all observations will be recorded per (~ the monitoring program. An increase in resident sandbar sharks (Carcharbznur pbrmbeu.r) did occur in the second stage of the `Ewa Beach platform trials, though not in the initial series of experimental platforms. Randy Cates (owner and operator of the moi farm offshore of `Ewa Beach) suggested that ~ based on his observations; there will be no aggregating effects of the platform on sharks (pers. comm.). There is no quantifiable evidence showing an effect ox no effect. Therefore, it is not known if sharks may be aggregated to the platforms, and if so, if this would mean an actual increase in the number of sharks in the overall area, or just a shift in distribution of the same numbers that already occur. If sharks are drawn to the platform, they will presumably (~ be drawn away from other adjacent areas, thereby reducing the apparent density of sharks (which might result in a decreased risk to the public from sharks). However, no conclusions can be drawn at this tune as there are only anecdotal data. As this project proposes a substantial increase in total production and number of platforms, more divers will be required to complete regular maintenance. Both the proposed and ~ alternative sites are 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) from land and potentially less protected Erom storms and dangerous sea conditions. These factors could increase the number of mortalities within the platforms as well as increase the length of time mortalities remain in the platforms, causing an increase in attraction by sharks and other predators to the platforms. IX~hile this argument remains speculative and will require further study to determine the ~ actual impact, the proposed project would create the oppoxmnitj~ for continual interactions between humans (divers) and sharks. The need to remove sharks is not incidental and in fact may be a necessary part of the success of the operation. To minimize potential impacts the following shark safety plan will be put in place as part of this project. Q a Shark Safety P/an (Mode%d after DAR). Divers should always be aware drat sharks could appear. If a shark is sighted, the list below are procedures to be followed: O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-66 2.5 Biological Resources ~ • Divers are to notify each other by hand sign (hand held fin-like on top of head) and divers are to aggregate together and face the shark. • Divers should try to keep their backs to the platform, buoy, boat or other obstacle. ~ • Divers are not to make any sudden movements, swim away hurriedly, splash, take photographs or flash lights at the shark. • Divers should surface to discuss if the dive should continue as soon as it is safe to do so. E • No dice is to continue if any diver feels uncomfortable or would prefer to abort. • No employee is ever expected to enter the water when sharks are around the platforms; any dive undertaken when sharks have been sighted must be at the diver's sole and absolute discretion. E • All sharks sighted are to be noted in the dice log. Record number of sharks, identifying features (species, length, distinguishing marks), behavior towards divers, and period of residence around the platforms. • Management must be notified of these encounters. There may be occasions when the offshore crew may have to use extra precautions with sharks. These occasions include, but are not limited to; 1) Shark at site is aggressive towards divers and other objects, 2) Shark has taken up residence ox has become territorial at the site. At this point, this is deFmed by viewing the same shark at the site for 2 or more days in succession. All procedures mentioned above still apply. In addition, extra precautions axe ~ listed below: • Divers/Snorkelers must add an additional diver to the team size (i.e. 3 divers instead of the normal 2). C • Divers/Snoxkelexs must remain within view on surface or underwater. • One of the dive team must carry a shark "poker" (large stick) if the divers remain in close proximity (<20 ft). • If divers are not in close proximity, every diver should have a "poker." C i'he diver supervisor on site is responsible for all dive operations so he/she can suspend any dive operations if they believe it is necessary. If any one shark starts to exhibit behavior that is considered a danger to divers, then the dive supervisor shall suspend all in-water work, secure the site and notify the Offshore Manager or Assistant Manager and the VP, Operations and/or the President. Prior to any further action, management will consult with C the local office of Division of Aquatic Resources to determine the next course of action (i.e. baiting, hooking and/or tagging) to discourage the shark from visiting the site. Additional Conservation Measures Monitoring and Reporting. I-Iawaii Oceanic Technology will undertake, at its own cost, to C develop a Monitoring Plan (MP) for documenting all interactions between the project and marine mammals, sea mrdes, and sharks. This will be prepared in consultation with NOAH Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-67 ~ 2.5 Biological Resources Fisheries. The assistance of marine mammal scientists, 1-III-I~VNMS staff, and/or NOAA Fisheries experts will be obtained to design a program that ensures the maximum practical Q amount of usable information is collected and incorporated into an MP. This would be similar, though less broad in scope, to the current MP undertaken and cuxxendy in process by the US Navy, NAVFAC Pacific, for Hawaiian waters, based on recommendations by local marine mammal mitigation experts (Smultea et al. 2007). Mattila and Walters (pers. comm.) also indicated that "detailed measures of abundance ox spatial distribution were not needed, Q but that basic records of interactions would suffice." That is, the MP will include a record of any interactions behvecn marine wildlife and the project structures (platforms), such as an}' close approach of a whale, such as within 30 meters (100 Eeet) (as regulated by the MMPA). All Hawaii Oceanic 'technology staff shall also adhere to federal recommendations or ~ instructions in the unlikely event of any collisions, or ship strikes. The initial response will be to immediately call the NOAH Fisheries Marine Mammal Stranding I-Iotline (1-888-256- 9840). Hawaii Oceanic Technology could work with HIHWNMS officials to train staff in appropriate fast-response measures, although liability concerns need to be addressed prior to undertaking this mitigation measure. Hawaii Oceanic Technology recognizes the complexity O of these issues, with sanctuary protocols and ESA considerations, but still affirms their willingness to assist sanctuary or NOAA Fisheries in any such manner that is deemed appropriate. Alternative 2 - Keahole Point \X/ith respect to biological resources, impacts under Alternative 2 are similar to impacts under ~ the Proposed Action. There are no differences between how the operation will be carried out, including size of the lease area, total number of platforms, amount of feed used and fish raised, and the use of deep cold water to power the POP system. In addition, while the sites are approximately 20 miles apart, they are both 3 miles (2.6 nautical milts) from shore and from the nearest reef. Like the Proposed Action site, there is no impact on terrestrial flora or marine macro Elora in the lease area, nor to terrestrial fauna. \X~hile the density of marine benthic organisms would most likely be lower beneath the Alternative 2 site, and the impact of falling detritus (i.e., uneaten food, fouling growth and fish feces) would be much less, the depth at the ~ Alternative 2 site is sufficient to elicit a no impact determination. Like the Proposed Action, there would be less than significant impacts to fishes, even though the platforms may act as a FAD and attract pelagic species. It ma}' provide additional fishing opportunities for fishermen in the area, which is a potentially beneficial impact. Q Alternative 2 would also have less than significant impacts on rare, endangered or threatened species, such as dolphins, whales, seals and turtles. There are more resting areas and a higher number of spinner dolphins observed in the nearshore waters adjacent to the Alternative 2 site. However, because the Alternative 2 site is located above deeper water (5,800 feet [1,768 meters]) than the Proposed Action site (1,320 feet [402 meters]), these is a greater buffer Q between the site and preferred habitat of spinner dolphins, humpback whales, sea turtles and all reef-associated species. Nevertheless, while the risk is small at both the Proposed Action site and the Alternative 2 site, it does exist and is not entirely removed at these sites. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-68 2.5 Biological Resources ~ Mitigation measures described above for the Proposed Action site would apply to the Alternative 2 site as well. Like the Proposed Action, impacts on sharks will also be less than significant at the Alternative 2 site, and minimized though the mitigation measures of monitoring and managing interactions with sharks. Alternative 3: No Action No Impacts The no action alternative would be to not carry out the Proposed Action, and would therefore conduct no activities in the water. As such, no impacts to biological resources O would occur. Q 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-69 e ~o 2.6 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 2.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES 10 10 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ O Introduction/Region of Influence The following section addresses hazardous materials and conditions, such as the use and storage of hazardous materials and wastes within the ROL "1'be ROI for this resource includes all harbor structures and facilities used by the OOA operation and the proposed leased ocean areas Eor the 00:1 operations and offshore ocean platform site. Resource Overview According to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCI,r1), a hazardous substance can be defined as any substance tha[, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical and chemical characteristics, poses a potential hazard to human health and saEery or to the environment CERCLA has created national policies and procedures to identify and remediate sites contaminated by hazardous substances. Specific Hazardous Materials and Conditions The following sections address specific hazardous materials and conditions of concern related to materials and wastes that may be used, stored, or transported within the ROI. Hazardous materials and wastes can affect the environment and often have specific regulations that govern their use, storage, and disposal. The specific human health and saEery hazards addressed are the potential for human exposure to gasoline, oils, lubricants, greases, paints, and other hazardous substances involved in boat maintenance. Existing Conditions of Personnel. A majority of the personnel who will be employed as part of the proposed project are already working in the fishing industry and are likely already involved in boat maintenance activities. These individuals are likely adept at managing exposure to the range of hazardous materials that are commonplace with boat maintenance activities. Ex/sting Conditions of Pro%ect Setting. Located at Kawaihae Harbor, the project storage site does not contain any known hazardous materials, wastes, or any other threats to human health and safety. Minimal amounts of paints, solvents, hydraulic fluids, lubricants, oils, and fuels needed fox everyday use and minimal maintenance activities fox the three work boats, trailers, and three large pickup trucks will be kept on site in accordance with all safety requirements. Major boat and track repairs will be done at an off-site commercial facility and will not introduce any hazardous wastes beyond everyday use levels. Any hazardous materials and or hazardous wastes generated from the project would be handled by the marine maintenance facility conducting boat conservation and repair activities upkeep. The underwater proposed locations of the aquaculmre apparatus does not currently contain any known hazardous materials or wastes. O Hazardous Materia/s Disposal within ROI. No hazardous waste will be produced by Altemativel or Alternative 2. 2.6.1 Affected Environment O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-70 2.6 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 2.6.2 Impact Analysis Environmental Consequences Impact Methodology p Numerous federal, state, and local laws regulate the storage, use, recycling, disposal, and transportation of hazardous materials and waste. The methods for assessing potential hazardous materials and conditions and impacts generally include the following: • Reviewing and evaluating the proposed actions to identif}' the action's potential to 0 use hazardous or toxic materials or to generate hazardous waste, based on the activities proposed; • Comparing the location of proposed actions with baseline data on known or potentially contaminated areas; • Assessing the compliance of proposed actions with applicable site-specific o hazardous materials and waste management plans; and • Assessing the compliance of proposed actions with applicable site specific standard operating procedures and health and safety plans in order to avoid potential hazards. Factors Considered for Impacts Analysis Regulatory standards and guidelines hate been applied to determine the significance of each alternative's potential impact from non-chemical hazards and hazardous materials and waste. Factors considered in determining whether the Proposed Action or the Alternative 2 would have a significant impact from hazardous materials and conditions include the extent or degree to which its implementation would result in the following: • Generate either hazardous or acutel}' hazardous waste, resulting in increased regulatory requirements over [he long term; • Cause a spill ox release of a hazardous substance (as defined by 40 CFR Part 302 ~, [CERCLA], or Parts 110, ] ] 2, 116, and 117 [Clean Water Act]); • Expose the environment or the public to any- hazardous condition through release or disposal; • Require the removal or upgrade of an underground storage tank; • Endanger the public or environment during the storage, transport, or use of hazardous substances; and • Expose the public to electromagnetic fields with cycle fLequencies greater than 300 Hz. E C Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Drafr Environmental Impact Statement 2-71 to 2.6 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 10 10 10 Summary of Impacts Table 2.6-1 summarizes impacts regarding hazardous materials and conditions. Table 2.G-I Summary of Potential Impacts from Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action ~X/aste Management Q Q Q Q Hazardous Materials Hazardous Waste Management Q Q Q Q Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Q Q Q Q O 10 O O In cases when there would be beneficial and adverse impacts, both axe shown on this table. i\'fltigation measures would only apply to adverse impacts. LEGEND: OO = Significant impact + =Beneficial impact B = Significant but rnitigable to less than significant impact N/A =Not applicable O = Less than significant impact O = No impact Proposed Action - Ma/ae Point Less Than Significant Impacts Hazardous materia/s and waste management Hazardous materials identified that may potentially be introduced to the ROI as a result of the Proposed Action are paints, solvents, hydraulic fluids, and other substances related to boat maintenance activities, which would occur off-site at a designated marine maintenance facility. The commercial repair facility is tasked with properly labeling, handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes used or generated in accordance with local and state hazardous materials and waste regulations by the maintenance facility. No identifiable hazardous materials will be stored or handled at the projec['s work site location at [he Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. No Impacts Waste management. There will be no impacts to waste management under the Proposed Action. The fish will be handled by an established fish processing compan}' located in Kona who will be contracted to prepare the ahi fox shipment. The Company will work with the fish processing company to encourage beneficial uses of the processing wastes for use as cattle feed and biodiesel, or as a source fox extracts for nutcaceuticals. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-72 2.6 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Alternative 2 - Keaho/e Point Less Than Significant Impacts O Impacts under Alternative 2 are similar to impacts under the Proposed Action. No identifiable hazardous materials will be stored or handled at the project's work site location at the Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. No Impacts There will be no impacts to waste management under Alternative 2. Alternative 3 - No Action No Impacts Under the no action alternative, the current level of activities would not change and the overall effect would be no impact. Any increase in waste produced would not be due to this project. O C c c c c I Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-73 C I 0 2.7 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION p 2.7.1 Affected Environment 2.7 Traffic and Introduction/Region of Influence The Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi A9uacultuce Project proposes two alternatives operating Erom a land-based location at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor (Figure 1-2). Under the Proposed Action, the OOA operations and ocean platform site will be off the North Kohala coast approximately 3 milts (2.6 nautical miles) due south west of Malae Point. Under Alternative 2 the OOA operations and ocean platform site would be off the North Kona Coast approximately 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) due west of Keahole Point (Figure 1- 5). Kawaihae Commercial Harbor will be the base for land and water operation activities. Containers of feed would be delivered by barge to the OOA site and stored on site. When fully operational the company will require 1,000 tons (900 metric tonnes) of feed stock per month arriving in 40 containers. This supply will be received at Kawaihae Harbor. The food would be delivered by boat [o the open ocean opecadon area twice per month. The ROl for the entire operation includes both Kawaihae Harbor and the leased ocean area. Resource Overview Land Traffic and Transportation Q Existing Traffic Volumes and Conditions and Transportation Facilities Direct access to Kawaihae Commercial Harbor is from a harbor road, shown below, just north of its junction with Akoni Pule Highway. Two miles to the south, Akoni Pule Highway intersects with two of the island's major highways, Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kawaihae Road. The harbor road, north of Akoni Pule Highway, is a two-lane asphalt roadway providing access to Pier 1, the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Small Boat Harbor and several businesses including a gas station, mini mall and real estate office. The roadway ends in aturn-around at the DLNR Harbor. Dive to eight feet of paved shoulders are on both sides of the roadway. The shoulders are utilized for overflow packing for the businesses. An approximately 9 foot wide gravel or landscaped strip is situated between the west shoulder and the harbors perimeter fence. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-74 2.7 Traffic and Transportation ~ Akoni Pule Highway, shown below, consists of two ]2-foot wide travel lanes with 6 to 12 foot wide paved shoulders. The roadway is posted at 45 mph, with a reduced speed of 35 mph north of the main hax~or enrrance gate. The southern terminus of the highway occurs at an unsignalized intersection with Kawaihae Road which is a major regional connector providing access towards Hilo through the town of Waimea, and with Queen Kaahumanu hlighwa}' which sen~ices the western Hawaii coastline. The Queen Kaahumanu leg of the intersection is stop fl controlled. Akoni Pale Highway north of the intersection with the harbor road traverses the north-west Big Island coast to the town of Hawi. In the vicinit}' of the project site, Akoni Pule Highway is a two lane asphalt roadway with 4 to 12 foot shoulders on both sides of the roadway. The roadway is sloped in the uphill direction as it moves away from the harbor. Access to E businesses occurs on both sides of the roadway. A limited number of parallel parking stalls are striped along the west shoulder of the roadway fronting the service station. Historical twenn~-four hour traffic counts were csamincd to understand the daily traffic patterns within the study area. Two Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) traffic E count stations are located within the sandy area, Kawaihae Road at Queen Kaahumanu Highwa}' (Station 11-E) and Akoni Pule Highwa}' 100 Yards North of Iawaihae Road (Station C-12-1`). HDOT conducted traffic counts on Akoni Pule Highway at milepost 1.77, between the Mini D9art and Kaewe Place at the guardrail, on Mav 23, 2006. The peak morning tcaf&c heading E towards Pololu Lookout recorded 40 aehides between 6:30 AM and 6:45 AM. The peak afternoon and evening traffic heading towards Pololu Lookout recorded 92 vehicles between 3:45 PM and 4:00 PM. The peak morning traffic heading towards Queen Kaahumanu Highway recorded 101 vehicles between 6:45 AM and 7:00 AM. The peak afternoon and evening traffic heading towards Queen Kaahumanu Highway recorded 69 vehicles between E 1:45 PM and 2:00 PM, with the same volume for the 15-minute count between 3:75 PM and 330 PM. The Traffic Analysis Report for the Hawaii Commercial I-Iarbors 2020 Master Plan (Ng 2001) noted that total daily traffic count in 2000 was 5,244 at Akoni Pule Highway north of ~ Kawaihae Wharf, 6,725 at Kawaihae Road between Kawaihae Wharf and Queen Kaahumanu Highwa}; 7,650 at 1{aw:tihae Road bctvzeen Queen Kaahumanu 1-lighwa}' and Akulani Street; and 10,365 at Queen Iaahumanu Highway between Kawaihae Road and Waikoloa Road (~]g 2001:4). The report concludes that, "...in Kawaihae, acceptable (LOS C or better) conditions were found for roadway segments and at intersections" (Ng 2001:5) ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-75 O 2.7 Traffic and Tra Ocean Traffic and Tran:>oortation A survey of recreational activity in the general area north of Malae Point was conducted from ~ August 2007 to October 2008 by HOT. The survey was conducted on seven summer days with low ocean swells and light trade winds. The timing of the surrey was selected to ensure that it xepmsented a period of heavy use on a weekend. Observers were situated on Malae Point at 200 feet elevation and used a horizon ~ measurement chart to estirnate distance from shove. During the 46 hours of observation at the Proposed Action site data points were gathered and recorded. During the entire 46 hours of observation at Malae Point only two vessels entered the ocean lease site and were in the area for less than a half hour period (Figure 2.7-1). During the observation period a maximum of 12 vessels were traveling near the site within three miles but not inside the site 0 (Figure 2.7-2). Vessels Observed within o Malae P<~int Ocean Lease Site 2 Q 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M cp r t\ W op O) m O O ~ r• N N M M 7 7 u7 i[1 (O <O ^ Friday 5/23/2008^ Sun 612212008 ^ Wed 712/2008 ^ Sun 8124/2008 ^ Sun 9/2112008 ^ Mon 9/22/2008 ^ Wed 10/1 /2008 Figure 2.7-1 Number of observed vessels in the Ocean Lease Site and the time and d date. ~~ ~~ ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-76 2.7 Traffic and Vessels Observed Outside the OLS and within Three Miles 15 10 5 0 ^ Friday 5/23/2008^ Sun 6/22/2008 ^ Wed 7/212008 ^ Sun 8/24/2008 ^Sun 9!21/2008 ^Mon 9/22/2008 ® Wed 10/1/2008 Figure 2.7-2 Number of observed vessels outside the Ocean Lease Site but within C three miles and the time and date. Most activit}~ in the general Malae Point area consisted of trolling fishing vessels with some recreational dive boats. Most of the dine recreational activities are in shallower water (less than 100 Eeet) and most of the trolling is performed within one mile off shore. Few boats ~' are expected to venture out into the FIawai`i Oceanic Technology operations area, which would be located 3 miles (2.6 nautical miles) out to sea. Barge traffic utilizes a route that places the barges further west of the Proposed Action site. Young Brothees, Ltd. and the Hawaii Superferry were informed about our location, and they ~ found no navigational problems associated with the Ocean Lease Site Malae Point location. The harbor master (Ian Birnie) and harbor manger at Kawaihae FIarbor were consulted also and they found no conflict of harbor operations with the Ahi Project operations. Vessel activity in the area around the Alternative 2 site is more widely distributed than the ~ Proposed Action site, with vessels utilizing the waters both east and west of the lternative 2 site. Trollers also utilize the 1000 fathom contour, which is located somewhat west of the Alternative 2 site. 2.7.2 Environmental Consequences Impact Assessment Methodology The traffic impact analysis completed to support the Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project describes land- and ocean-based rraffic within the ROl. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-77 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M ~O r r~ a0 O O O O N N M M 7 7 N N U1 O O 2.7 Traffic and Factors Considered for Impacts Analysis The criteria fox assessing effects on traffic conditions in the ROI included reviewing and Q interpreting baseline traffic conditions and applying the projected traffic contributions that may be generated as a result of the proposed action. Traffic factors include volume, LOS' (level of service), and volume to capacity ratio (V/C)z. Significance is determined if the traffic from the proposed action would result in a decrease of the baseline LOS rating for the affected roadways or intersections. In other words, iE the proposed action was to generate Q traffic volume so as to increase congestion in the ROI, then that would be deemed a significant impact on traffic conditions. Summary of Impacts Table 2.7-1 summarizes traffic and transportation impacts. Q Table 2.7-1 Summary of Potential Traffic and Transportation Impacts Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Q Land ~ ~ 0 Ocean In cases when there would be beneficial and adverse impacts, both are shown on this table. blitigadon measures would onl}' apply to adverse impacts. LEGEND: Q 0 = Significant impact + = Beneficial impact = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact N/A = Not applicable = Less than significant impact = No impact ~Q ~Q Q LOS (level of serice) refers to a standard measurement used by transportation officials and reflects the relative ease of traffic flow on a scale of .-1 to F, with free-flowing conditions rated as LOS r1 and congested conditions rated as LOS F (FI-I~X/A, no date). ~ zP/C (volume capacity ratio) measures traffic demand on a facility (expressed as volume), compared to the txaEEtc carrying capacity. In other words, this is the ratio of the level of vehicular travel fox a roadway to the amount of designed capacity on the roadway. A ~'/C ratio of 1 means the roadway is functioning at capacity and congested conditions axe expected (dPA 2002). O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-78 2.7 Traffic and Proposed Action - Malae Point Less Than Significant Impacts C Land. Hawaii Oceanic Technology would provide at least 22 full-tune equivalent jobs, 10 of which would be for the offsbore fish platform operations. Employees would be traveling to the harbor and land-based operation centers from surrounding areas. Anticipated hours of operation would be Monday through Friday during the daytime (e.g., 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM). An estimated 22 employees would be traveling to the harbor and ten would go on to work at C the offshore fish platform site on a semi-regular basis for feeding, maintenance, and periodic fingerling stocking and fish harvesting. Employee parking at the harbor would be located at the I-Iawai`i Oceanic Technology boat and equipment storage facilities. In addition, there will be one track every two weeks taking ahi to Kona for processing. If the estunated 22 Hawaii Oceanic Technology employees were driving separate vehicles C and traveling to ox from the harbor, approximately 11 of the employees would be driving before the morning peak traffic period, and 11 would be driving after the morning traffic period. The geographic distribution of where the employees would be coming from can assume that 1/3 of the employees would come fLOm Kohala, 1/3 Ecom Waimea and 1/3 C from North Kona. Therefore, there would be approximately 3 or 4 more vehicles added to the roads from each major direction before the morning peak hour and after the rooming peak hour. The same would be assumed Eor the afternoon, when 3 or 4 more vehicles would be added to the roads going in each major direction before and after the peak afternoon traffic time. ~i The additional trafFc generated by Hawaii Oceanic Technology can be assumed to be included in the furore traffic projections included in the Traffic Anal}sis Report for Kawaihae Harbor for the Hawaii Commercial Harbors 2020 Master Plan, which states, "...future traffic volumes in and out of Kawaihae Harbor were estimated Ro increase 200% over existing volumes. Other non-harbor traffic volumes were increased...by 110% near E Kawaihae Harbor" (Ng 2001:6). The future traffic projection in the 2020 Master Plan offers an analysis of what could be considered as the potential cumulative and secondary impact of this Proposed Action along with all the other development planned Eox the Kawaihae Harbor area. ~ The Traffic Analysis Report assumes that certain road improvements are made to accommodate the future traffic in the area. These future improvements include the construction of a new two-lane road from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Akoni Pule Highway that will bypass the harbor area (listed as Tier 1 project), and a new road between Q Waimea and Kawaihae (proposed as a Ticr 2 project (2006-2010). The report concludes that, "with these improvements in place, there would be adequate access to the harbors" (Ng 2001: 8). O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-79 0 Ng (2001) continues: 2.7 Traffic and Q The proposed bypass road will reduce traffic volumes in the immediate vicznity o, f Kawaihae Harbor. Assess would be provided by the existing road, which would be connected at an impravedjtrnction with the futurz Queen Kaahumanu Hegbway to Akoni Pule Highway corridor (Ng 2001: 9J. ~ The report concludes that "...a decrease in through traffic near the harbor and the addition of a second access road from Kawaihae Road would provide acceptable peak hour conditions along the roadway and at the critical intersections" (Ng 2001: 10). Based on this analysis, it is concluded that the additional traffic generated by the Hawaii O Oceanic Technology at Kawaihae Harbor would not cause a significant impact on traffic in the area, and is included in the future traffic projections in the 2020 Master Plan traffic analysis that concludes the roadways would be operating at acceptable peak hour conditions. Since Hawaii Ocean Technology activities would provide the marine community with ~ contracts for salvage, transportation, platform maintenance, and boat leasing, this economic activity could increase both land-based and ocean-based traffic. Fingerlings would be purchased from the PACRC in Hilo and transported to HIlo Harbor. Upon arrival, they would be placed in the holding tank of a ship and transported from Hilo O to the OOA site, where they would be pumped through a hose into the submerged platforms. This would happen infrequently and the additional traffic in and out of Hilo ' Harbor would be negligible. No Impacts Ocean. Periodically, feed in canisters that fit into the step of the OOA platform would be 0 transported to the OOA site via boat. A crane would remove the empty feed canister and replace it with the full canister. Operations would be performed within the ocean lease area, and the boat would approach the site from outside of the I-Iumpback Whale Marine Sanctuary. O SCUBA divers would be deployed almost daily to inspect the health of the tuna, obserne feed of tuna, and remove mortalities. Workers would visit the site every workday to maintain platforms and to supervise feeding of the fish. Two boats would be used to travel to the platforms daily, five days per week (Monday through Pxida}'), resulting in an estimated hventy roundtrip boat trips per week. Periodically, platforms would be raised to the surface, disassembled at the OOA site and placed on work boats for transport to the maintenance site at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor for refitting. ~ Tuna would be harvested at sea. The Fish would be transported to Kawaihae Harbor and trans-shipped to refrigerated track and transported to an existing fish processing operation in Kona. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-80 2.7 Traffic and Transportation Some portion of the harvest would be iced and prepared fox delivery to wholesalers and distributors on the Islands of Hawaii, Oahu, Maui and Kauai. Where ,possible, product would be put on a refrigerated dehvery truck and sent to neighboring islands via container C ships or the Superferry. The remaining portion of the harvest would be frozen and shipped via au freight to wholesalers and distributors on the US mainland and ]apan. "Phe marine traffic associated with the proposed project would not interfere with the lanes of traffic for the Kawaihae Harbor. Kawaihae Harbor currently operates below capacity and the E additional marine traffic introduced through the proposed action will have no impacts. Alternative 2 - Keahole Point Less Than Significant Impacts e Land. Impacts under Alternative 2 are similar to impacts under the Proposed Action. band based operations are identical, located at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. The further distance from Kawaihae Harbor to the Alternative 2 site will increase use of fuel, which is an operational consideration. The increase of vehicles fox project operations and the road traffic caused by the additional vehicles would occur over a period of five years. As discussed e for the Proposed Action, roadway expansion projects are currently underway that would increase the roadway's LOS rating and would be able to accommodate additional traffic. Impacts would be less than significant. No Impacts Ocean. Under Alternative 2, impacts to marine traffic would be similar to impacts under the ~ Proposed Action. Marine traffic would increase within Kawaihae Commercial Harbor, however, the harbor is currenti}' operating at levels below capacity and will be able to accommodate the increase in traffic The increase in vessel traffic that may result at the Alternative 2 site is not considered to be significant because the ocean lease site is a very small part of the expansive ocean area off the Kona coast that is calm, safe for boating, and ~ good fishing. Alternative 3 - No Acfion No Impacts ~ Under the no action alternative, there would be no impacts as no aquaculture project would be undertaken and existing traffic and transpoxration conditions would not change. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-81 O 2.8 Air 2.8 AIR QUALITY O 2.8.1 Affected Environment Introduction/Region of Influence The Proposed Project will contain Ahi for grow out in the Oceansphere. This approach is superior to conventional methods of fishing and trolling for tuna as it has a smaller carbon footprint. Aquaculmxe burns less fossil fuels and saves on the amount of carbon dioxide released to the ~tmosphexe. Figure 2.8-1 is an energy capital expendimre analysis of tuna aquaculmxe verses 2008 Hawaii tuna longGner fishing boats. Figure 2.8-1 Energy capital expenditure analysis of fishing and aquaculture O io ~~ 10 10 $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 5200,000 $100,000 $D EnergyCapex HI Longliner Tuna Fishing' vs Aquaculture increasing energy cost ® OceanSphere ~ HI Longliner 2008 * 20081st Quarter Report Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center @Based on production of 240,000 t u na The ROI for the proposed project depends on the pollutant and types of emission sources. 0 Most primary pollutants arc local, meaning the highest concentrations occur close to the source and disperse downwind with decreasing concentrations. Examples of primary air pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter. Ozone is a secondary pollutam formed in the air as its precursors interact. O The primary focus on air quality issues for this evaluation is the potential fugitive dust emissions from increased vehicle and boat activin~ associated with Hawati Oceanic Technologv operations. Fox such sources the ROI is typically a limited area within a short O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-82 2.8 Air distance of any of the operation area boundaries, which is primarily Kawaihae Commercial Harbor (Figure 1-2) and the Proposed Action site off Malae Point (Figure 1-1) and the Alternative 2 site off Keahole Point (Figure 1-10). C Resource Overview To measure existing air quality, the state and the USEPA maintain a network of monitoring stations throughout the islands of Flawai`i (Figure 2.8-2). These stations are generally located where there may be air quality problems, so monitoring usually occurs in of near urban areas E ox close to specific large air pollution sources. Other stations in more remote locations provide an indication of regional air pollution levels. Based on monitoring information collected over a period of years, the state and federal agencies designate, regions as being attainment or nonattainment areas fox particular air pollutants. Attainment status is therefore a measure of whether au quality in an area complies with the National Ambient Air Quality ~ Standards (NAAQS). The state of Hawaii is in attainment for all criteria pollutants because all measured pollutant concentrations axe well below the applicable standards Table 2.8-1). Typical emission sources in Hawaii include large and small industrial and commercial sites, transportation sources such as on-road and off-road vehicles that contribute mainly to ~ fugitive dust; vehicle, tilling, processing, and Held-burning emissions related to agricultural activities; and natural emission sources such as volcanoes (vog). Hawai`i's clinate and meteorolog}' play a critical role in maintaining Hawai`i's air quality. I-Iawai`i is the only state surrounded by the ocean and the only state within the tropics. Almost half of the area of Hawaii is within five miles of the coast, and the remaining half e lies above an elevation of 2,000 feet. These topographic and oceanic influences result in very- diverse climatic conditions. In general, the climatic regions of each island differ with respect to exposure to the prominent trade winds that generally flow east to west, and the influence of terrain that produces upslope winds during the morning and downslope winds in the evening. Major storms usually occur from October through April and are generally ~ accompanied by heavy rains and strong winds. 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ah~ Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-83 0 0 2.8 Air Figure 2.8-2. Air Quality Monitoring Stations on the Island of Hawaii. xe '~ 0 Q n+mTti azsa ioiee.: Source: 2005 Annual Summary Hawaii Air Quality Data, State of I-Iawai`i, DOFI, Clean Air Branch O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-84 2.8 Air Table 2.5-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for US EPA Criteria Air Pollutants Hawaii Federal (State Ambient Air (National Ambient Ait __ Air Pollutant Quality Standards) Quali Standards) Carbon Monoxide 1-hour~i 9 ppm 35 ppm 8-hour(°) 4.4 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide .Annual 0.04 ppm 0.05 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 3-hood°7 0.5 ppm __ 24-hour') 0.14 ppm 0.14 ppm .Annual 0.03 ppm 0.03 ppm Ozone 1-hoax 0.08 ppmi°) 0.12 ppm 8-hour 0.08 ppmlt PMto 24-hoax 150 µg/m3 (°) 150 µg/mil°~ llnnual 50 µg/m' 50 µg/m3rol PMzs 24-hoax -- 65 µg/m31~> annual - 15 µg/m'lai Hydrogen Sulfide ]-hoax 35 µg/mil°1 - Souxce: State of llawai`i, Department of Hcal[h, Clean Aix Branch 2005 No[c Most vtate standards arc converted from micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to pam per million (ppm). All values not to be exceeded cscep[ as noted: i°> Not [o be exceeded more than once per yx~x Oil Attainment based on 3-year average t~Atninmrn[ based on 3-year average of the 99[h percentile of 2¢hour PMto concentradons t'9 Attainmen[ based on 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean pMzs concentrations from single or multiple community-oden[ed monitors (d pt[ainment based on 3-year average of the 98[h percentile of 2¢hour PMi; concentrations (9 Attainment based on 3-year averakre of the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hoar ozone concentration. The annual Hawaiian climate is characterized by two seasons: the winter storm months and the summer months. The temperature range between the warmer summer months and winter months is slight-less than 9° Fahrenheit (F) at any location in Hawaii below 5,000 feet elevation, usually behveen 75° F and 85° F. Rainfall is much more variable. While the annual average rainfall in Hawaii is about 70 inches, the leeward coastal areas receive less than 10 inches of rainfall, while the mountainous areas can receive up to 240 inches. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-85 C e E ~.. O 0 2.8 Air On days of strong trade winds -predominantly over winter - a general northerly wind pattern results in negligible levels of vog. On days of weaker trade winds generally more frequent Q over summer -amore southerly air flow brings vog-laden air Exom Kilauea volcano on a southerly air stream, created by the adiabatic convection currents along the lee of the island. Usually the air is clear, dry and cooler in the mornings, with offshore winds predominating. The Five air quality stations on Hawaii monitor sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide Q concentrations. These are the only two criteria pollutants deemed necessary for monitoring by the US EPA. The primary source of both of these pollutants is volcanoes. Only the Puna E station located in proximity to the currently erupting Kilauea volcano exceeded state air quality standards for any monitored pollutant at any time during 2005. Puna E exceeded the one-hoax hydrogen sulfide occurrence once in August 2005. Hawaii air quality continues to O be one of the best in the nation, and criteria air pollutant levels remain well below state and federal ambient air quality standards (DOH 2005). 2.8.2 Environmental Consequences ~ Impact Assessment Methodology Potential air quality impacts from the proposed actions can be evaluated by comparing the emissions expected to result Exom the proposed changes in the activity levels on the Island of Hawaii to current activity levels. Although the proposed actions would not result in new emission source types or change the types of activities, OOA operations would increase the number of vehicles associated with operations compared to the current levels. Factors Considered for Impact Analysis Factors considered in determining whether the proposed action would have a significant impact on air quality include the following: Q • Whether or not a reasonable potential exists to violate an ambient air quality standard; and • ~~'hether or not potential emissions axe localized and temporary. Summary of Impacts Q Table 2.8-2 summarizes impacts on air quality. The Proposed Action, Alternative 2, and cumulative effects would not likely have any significant adverse impacts that axe not mitigable to less than significant. As further discussed in Section 2.8.3, baseline air quality conditions are not deternuned to be substantial. The no action alternative would not augment these effects; therefore, there is no anticipated impact. Q ~Q Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-86 2.8 Air Table 2.8-2 Summary of Potential Air Quality Impacts Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Fugitive Dust Exom Vehicles ~ Q ~ Q Emissions Q Q Q Q In cases when there would be beneficial and adverse impacts, both are shown on this table. it'fidgation measures would only apply to adverse impacts. LEGEND: ~I = Significant impact + = Beneficial impact ~~ = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact N/A = Not applicable = Less than significant impact = No impact Proposed Action - Ma/ae Point No Impacts Fugitive Dust. Operations fer the Proposed Action will increase the local traffic within the harbor by approximately 25 vehicles from the equivalent of 22 full-time personnel and the four large pickup trucks. An additional 25 vehicles operating on the roads will have a negligible impact on air quali[}' within the ROI. Following local driving rules and remaining on paved areas will also contribute to no impacts. Emissions. An additional 25 vehicles and any boats used for operations will not produce enough emissions to violate ambient air quality standards. The harbor and the leased area of ocean for the OOA are in open areas, and any emissions would be dispersed by prevailing trade winds over the open ocean. The proposed project would have no impacts on air quality as a result of construction activities. Alternative 2 - Keaho/e Point No Impacts Impacts under Alternative 2 are similar to impacts under the Proposed Action. The number of vehicles and boats used for Alternative 2 are identical to the Proposed Action and will not produce enough dust or emissions to violate ambient au quality standards and there will be no new construction as part of Alternative 2. There will be no impacts. Alternative 3 - No Action No Impacts The no action alternative would not change or augment the level of fugitive dust and vehicle emissions. No impacts are identified as a result of the no action alternative. Hawaii Oceanic rechno/ogy Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-87 C e e C C O 0 2.9 Socioeconomic Conditions 2.9 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS O 2.9.1 Affected Environment Introduction/Region oflnfluence Hawaii Oceanic "technology is involved with the local population in many endeavors in both the private and commercial sectors. O Partnershins: Hawaii Oceanic Technology has working relationships m research and technology development in the form of proposals and contracts with University of Hawau at Hilo, University of Hawaii Manoa, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, FIawaii Institute of Marine Biology and the Oceanic Institute. i0 ~~ ~~ The socioeconomic indicators used fox this study include regional economic activity (business activity, employment, and income), population, housing, and schools. These indicators help to characterize the ROI. For the puipose of this analysis, an ROI is a geographic area selected as a basis on which social and economic impacts of project alternatives are analyzed. The ROI includes nearby trade and service centers related both directly and indirectly to the economic activities of the proposed Ahi 1,quaculture Project, including Kawaihae (land based office and base yard at Kawaihae Harbor where employees will be based), Kona (location of fish processing company and airport used for shipping), and Hilo (site of hatchery, and transshipping hatchlings through Hilo Harbor). Based on these criteria, the ROI for socioeconomic impacts is the entire Hawaii County, where the land based operations of the proposed project would take place. Socioeconomic resources include population, employment, income, housing, and schools. The population data include the number of residents in the area and the recent changes in population growth. Data on employment, labor force, unemployment trends, income, and industrial earnings describe the economic health of a region. The number and type of housing units and schools can be indicators of the regional quality of life. Resource Overview IO ~~ 10 Population Based on the HDBEDT analysis of the most recent population estimate released by the US Census on March 22, 2007, population growth in the state of Hawaii has been stable over the last seven years (2000-2006), after seven years of below one percent growth (1995-2001). Leading the growth in population Erom 2005 to 2006 was Hawaii County, with a growth rate of 2.8 percent, followed by Maui County (+1.2%), and Kauai County (+1.0%); Honolulu County grew the least, at 0.6 percent (HDBEDT 20076). The growth of Hawa`i County (Island of Hawaii) population in recent years was partly due to the fact that more people move to this island from other islands in the state and from the US mainland. An average of 2,805 more people moved (from foreign, US mainland, or Hawaii neighbor islands) to the Island of Hawaii per year than those moved from the island during the 2000-2006 periods (HDF_BEDT 20076). Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Review-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-88 2.9 Socioeconomic Conditions ds shown in 'Table 2.9-1, the population of the state of Hawaii increased by 9.3 percent between 1990 and 2000. This compares to a 23S percent growth rate fox Hawaii County during the same period. Hawaii County's population increased by 15.1 percent between (/ 2000 and 2006. Fox comparison, the population of the state of Hawaii increased by 6.1 percent during die same time period (fable 2.9-1). Table 2.9-1 Population Trends for the State and County e Change % Change 1990 2000 2006 1990-2000 2000-200G Halvai`i State 1 108 229 1 211 537 1 285 498 9 3 61 Hawa~`i County (Island of Hawu`r) 120,317 148,677 171,191 23.5 15.1 2007b C Economy, Employment, and Income In the fourth quarter of 2006, Hawaii Counh~ added 2,450 wage and salary jobs, a 3.7 percent increase Exom the fourth quarter of 2005. The state govemment added the most (500 Q jobs), followed by natural resources, mining, and construction (400 jobs), retail trade (300 jobs), transportation, warehousing, and utilities (250 jobs), and food services and drinking places (200 jobs). The agriculture sector lost 50 jobs (HDBFDT 2007a). Table 2.9-2 presents the distribution of employment for Hawaii County among the various ~ industry sectors and the changes experienced in these sectors between 2005 and 2006. The government, retail trade, accommodation, and health care and social assistance sectors employed the greatest number of workers in Flawai`i County in 2006. Most of the sectors experienced an increase in the number of employment except for the farm industry, which lost 6.1 percent of employment in one }'ear. Q Q Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Review -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-89 Q O 2.9 Socioeconomic Conditions Q Table 2.9-2 Economic Indicators for Hawaii County Hawaii County Sector Number of Persons, 2006 Total emplo}ment 81 350 Change Year Ago 2.9 Total unemployment 2 550 3.3 Farm employment 2 300 -6.1 Nonfarm employment 64,150 3.4 0 Transportation warehousing and utilities 3,050 7.0 Manufacturing 1 500 3.4 Natural resources mining and construction 5,150 6.2 Wholesale trade 1,750 6.1 Retail trade 9,200 3.4 Information 650 0.0 Financial acti~dties 2,750 5.8 Professional and business ser~'ices 4,950 4.2 Educational services 1,000 53 Health care and social assistance 6,000 1.7 r1rts, entertalnmen[, and xecxeauon 1,600 3.2 rlccommodadon 7,200 1.4 '. 0 Food services and drink places 5,450 3.8 Other services 2,000 0.0 Government Source: I-IDBI?.D'1' 2007a 11,950 3.0 O In 2006, the ROI civilian labor force totaled 83,850, with 81,350 employed and 2,550 unemployed. The average annual unemployment rate Eox the ROI was 3.0 percent in 2006, higher than Hawai`i's state average annual unemployment rate of 2.6 percent (HDEBDT 2007a). O The per capita personal income of the ROI was $25,096 in 2004 (HDEBDT 2005). This was lower than the state of Hawai`i's per capita personal income of $32,625 (HDEBDT 2005). Personal income in the sector of forestry, fishing, related activities, and other declined by 15 percent between 2007 and 2004 (HDEBEDT 2005). O Fish Industry In the commercial fish industry, the annual fish catch in the state of Hawaii Eor }'ellowfm (Ahi) declined by 29 percent between 2003 and 2004 (3,129,477 to 2,219,343 pounds [1,419,507 to 1,006,677 kilograms]) and increased by 48 percent between 2004 and 2005 (2,219,343 ro 3,286,472 pounds [1,006,677 to 1,409,719 kilograms]) (HDBEDT 2005). O ~ Pex capita personal income was computed using Census Bureau midyear population estimates. Estimates for 2000- 2004 reflect count}' population estimates available as of .~1pxi1 2006. Source: US Bureau of Economic dnalysis 2006 O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Review -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-90 2.9 Socioeconomic Conditions Housing Housing units in the state of Hawaii increased by 6.3 percent behveen the years 2000 and 2005, from 461,693 to 491,071 units. During the same period, housing units increased by 14.2 percent in Hawaii County, Erom 63,023 to 71,984 units (HDBEDT 2007c). In 2005, 17.3 percent (12,514 units) of die housing units in Hawaii County were vacant For the same year, housing units occupied by renters formed 32.8 percent of the total occupied housing units (US Census 2005). Schools The I-IDOE, headquartered in Honolulu, oversees public primary and secondary schooling for the state, with 285 schools located throughout the islands. The ROI is divided into 10 school-complex areas, with a total of 56 schools, including 12 charter schools, 2 adult education schools, and 8 high schools (HDOF., 2007). Environmental Justice On February 11, 7994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Enaironmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. Environmental justice is analyzed to identify potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations from proposed actions and to identify alternatives dial might mitigate the impacts. The ROI has fewer individuals reporting to be Black or African American or American Indian and tllaska Native than the state of Hawaii or the United States but a higher percentage of Asians than the state of Hawaii or the United States. The percentage of Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders is higher than the state of Hawaii and the United States as a whole. The percentage of Hispanics or Latinos in the ROI is higher than the state of Hawaii but lower than the United States as a whole (Table 2.9-3). Table 2.9-3 Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status for Hawaii County, State of Hawaii, and the United States (2005) C E C Wlvte Hawaii County 34.9% Hawaii State 24.9% United States 74.7°/a Black ox African Arneacan 0.7% 2.0% 12.1% Arn~encan Indian and Alaska Native 0.1% 0.3% 0.8% .-lstan 235% 42.0% 4.3% Mauve Hawauan and other Pacific Islander 9.0% S.S% 0.1% O Hispanic or Latino' 11.7% 8.0% 14.5% Other 2.2% 1.3% 6.0°/n Two ox mote races 29.6 21.0 1.9% Persons living in poverty Source US Census Bureau 2005a, 20056, 2005c. ~Pcrous of Hispanic orildn ma}' be of any retc 13.2% 9.8% 13.3% Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Review -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-91 O O 2.9 Socioeconomic Conditions The Census Bureau bases the poverty status of fatnilies and individuals on 48 threshold variables, including income, family size, number of family members under the age of 18 and Q over the age of 65, and amount spent on food. In 2005, approximately 13.2 percent of the Hawaii County residents were classified as living in poverty, higher than for the state of I-Iawai`i and almost sitnilar to the United States as a whole. Protection of Children Q F_secutive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, April 1997, seeks to protect children from disproportionately incurring environmental health risks or safety risks that might arise from federal policies, programs, activities, and standards. Environmental health risks and safety risks to children axe those that are attributable to substances that a child is likely to come into contact with or to ingest. Q The Ahi Aquaculture Project would operate in the ocean, Kawaihae Commercial Harbor, and Hilo I-Iarbor. All of these areas are off limits to children, unless accompanied by an adult. 2.9.2 Environmental Consequences O Impact Methodology The ROI fox the proposed action was defined as I-Iawai`i County (Island of Hawai`i). Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and the no action alternative are reviewed and evaluated to identify potential impacts (beneficial or adverse) on conditions in the ROI. For the proposed Q action, impacts on population, employment, income, business volume, housing, and schools were evaluated qualitatively. Factors Considered for Impacts Analysis Factors considered in determining whether an alternative would have a significant impact on Q socioeconomics include the extent or degree to which its implementation would result in the following: • Change the unemployment rate for Hawaii County; • Change total income; Q • Change business volume; • Change the demand on housing; • Change school enrollment; Q • Result in disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income population; or • Result in risks on the health and safety of children. Summary of Impacts Table 2.9-4 summarizes impacts on socioeconomics. Alternative ]and Alternative 2 would Q have beneficial effects on the local economy, with increases in employment, income, and Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Review -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-92 Q 2.9 Conditions business sales volume from the Ahi Aquaculmte Project. Environmental Justice will be impacted positively by the availability of jobs at all educational levels. Table 2.9-4 Summary of Potential Socioeconomic Impacts Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Populatioq Housing, and Schools ~ Q ~ Q Economy, Employment, and Income + } + Q Environmental Justice } } .{- Q Priitection of Children Q 0 Q O In cases when there would be benefiual and adverse impacts, both axe shown ou this table. LEGEND: ~~I' = Significant impact + = BeneFcial impact ~~ = Significant but xxutigable to less than significant impact N/A = Not applicable = Less than significant impact = No impact Proposed Action - Malae Point Benificial Economy, Employment, and Income. Hawaii County's economy will be positively impacted by job creation, diversification and increased revenues. Hawaii has a market of about 3,307 tons (3,000 metric tonnes) per }'ear, where nearly 10.03 tons (9.1 metric tonnes) are consumed during the Christmas and New Year holida}'s alone. In 2005, total annual fish catch for yellowfm Ahi in the state of Hawaii was approximately 1,000 tons (I-IDEBDT 2005). Hawaii Oceanic Technology is planning to supply only 10 percent of the local market with the open-ocean raised yellowfin tuna to educate customers of hotels and restaurants about the qualitative characteristics of the clean ranching conditions of the raised yellowfm tuna. F-Iawaii Oceanic Technology's target market is the US mainland and Japan, where the selling prices would be twice as profitable as the local market Therefore, the Proposed Action could have no impacts on the local matket. The fish Earnting operations will most directl}' impact the local economy through employment, secondary support industries, and product availability. The Proposed Action will support other local businesses that will supply the wide variety of services and materials necessary to build and maintain the operations. The Proposed Action wIll directly contribute to local employment, with 22 full-time equivalent positions, including 10 ocean operations personnel. Based on the input-output model prepared by the HDBEDT for the state of Hawaii, the job multiplier Eox the proposed Hawaii Oceanic Technology project is 21 jobs fox every 10 direct employees (Bahar 2006). The input-output model is an economic development tool that helps predict how changes in one industry's final demand, employment, and income can affect the rest of the economy. The input-output multiplier determines changes in total output employment and income levels in the entire economy (HDBEDT 2007d). Based on the input-output Hawatt Oceantc Technology Aht Aquaculture Review -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-93 C C c C O O 2.9 Socioeconomic Conditions multiplier, it is expected that the proposed Hawaii Oceanic Technology project will add 46 indirect jobs in addition to the 22 duect full-time positions. As such, this project would have 0 beneficial impacts on the overall employment in the ROI and would offer oppoxmnities fox alternative employment fox fishermen. Indirect beneficial effects to the ROI would be to revitalize Hawai`i's reputation as a source of high quality, sashimi-grade tuna. The greatest public benefit to be gained from this Q project is probably in creating the commercial incentive for further research and increased infrastmcture for hatchery production of marine fish. The Proposed Action could also indirectly benefit local farmers. I-Iawaii Oceanic Technology will consider supplementing the fish-based feed with soy protein and/or algae supplied by O local farmers to eventually reduce the need fox acquiring feed from outside I-Iawai`i. Environmental Justice. Beneficial impacts are expected on minority and low-income populations as a result of the Proposed Action, as new jobs will become available at all educational levels. Local contractors will benefit from new business as well. As noted earlier, O Hawaii Oceanic Technology is planning to supply, only ten percent of the current local tuna market needs with the open-ocean raised yellowfin tuna and this would not affect the local market of commercial fish sales by local fishermen. Hawaii Oceanic Technolog}'s target market is the US mainland and Japan. As such, impacts on the local fishermen axe not expected. ~ No Impact Population, Housing, and Schoo/s. No impacts on population, housing, and schools axe expected as a result of this alternative. Tlus project would not result in a significant increase in the local population, and therefore, would not increase the demand on housing and schools. Protection of Ch//dten. No impacts on children would be expected. The proposed project location would be in the open ocean or inside facilities at Kawaihae Harbor or Hilo Harbor. These harbor facilities axe fenced and off limits to children, unless accompanied by an adult. The ocean is accessible only by boat, where children would be accompanied by an adult. 0 Alternative 2 - Keahole Point Impacts under Alternative 2 are similar to impacts under the Proposed Action. There would be less than significant impacts on the economy, emplo}ment, income, and environmental justice and no impact on population, housing, schools and protection of children. Project ~ operations' would be run in the same manner as with the Proposed Action and the open ocean base operations at Keahole Point, both of which axe within the same coung'. Alternative 3 - No Action Under the no action alternative, conditions would remain unchanged; therefore, no impacts 0 on socioeconomic conditions, environmental justice, and the protection of children axe expected. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Review- Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-94 I' -- 2.10 Emergency Services and Human Health and Safety 2.10 EMERGENCY SERVICES AND HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY 2.10.1 Affected Environment Introduction/Region oflnfluence The following section addresses emergency services and human health and safety within the ROI. The ROI can be defined as the project area itself. C Resource Overview C Public and worker health and safely issues include potential hazards related to underwater diving operations, particularly the failure of SCUBA equipment and shark attacks. Existina Conditions of Personnel "fhe majority of personnel who would be employed as part of the Proposed Action or C Alternative 2 are already working in the fishing or marine industry. As such, these employees would already be involved in underwater operations prior to employment with Hawaii Oceanic Technology. The personnel would have been trained in managing their SCUBA equipment and would be knowledgeable of the dangers of shark attacks and other ocean- related safety and emergency procedures. Q Existina Conditions of Project Setting SCUBA Diving Rirkr. When people axe properly trained and exercise good judgment, SCUBA diving is a relatively safe activity. Dangers that may be encountered while SCUBA diving include Barotrauma risks, non-Barotrauma risks, and physical and health hazards Q (SCUBA Guide 2007). Barotruama risks include alternaobaric vertigo, altitude sickness, barodontalgia, decompression sickness (known as "the bends', dysbaric ostconecrosis, embolism, arterial gas embolism, cerebral embolism, lung expansion injury, pneumomediastium, pressure Q arxhythmias, tinnitus, Eustachian and inner ear damage, and Tympaiuc membrane rupture and/ox hearing loss (SCUBA Guide 2007). Non-barotrauma risks include carbon dioxide toxicity (hypercapnia), nitrogen narcosis (known as "rapmxe of the deep', and oxygen toxicity (SCUBA Guide 2007). Q Physical and health hazards include dangerous marine life (e.g., jellyfish), dehydration, hypothermia, drowning, running out of air, or underwater emergencies (SCUBA Guide 2007). \X/hile SCUBA diving accidents do happen on occasion in Hawaii, seldom do the accidents Q result in fatalities. Shark Incidents. The waters off the Island of Hawaii are second lowest out of the five main Hawaiian Islands in recorded shark incidents since 1990 (DAR 2007). As shown in Q Figure 2.10-1, less than nine shark incidents have occurred off of the Island of Hawaii since Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-95 Q to 10 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~0 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~Q ~0 2.10 Emergency Services and Human Health and Safety 7990, with two resulting in fatalites (DAR 2007a, DAR 20076). There have been no xeporeed shack incidents since 2004 in the waters off the Island of Hawaii (DAR 2007b). The Proposed Action would occur in deep waters three miles from shore, while almost all reported shack incidents occur in shallow coastal waters. Emergency Services. Pex State of Flawai`i's Act 54, effective January 1, 2004, all vessels more than one mile offshore must have an Electronic Position Indicating Radio beacon (EPIRB) or Verv High Frequency (VHF) radio on board. The State of Hawaii Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR) also requires that: All commercial vessels must report casualties (capsizing, grounding, falls overboard or on board, or other injuries incurred while aboard a vessel) to the Coast Guard per federal regulations applicable to the aessel. Cc,~mmercial vessel casualties muse be reported to the Coast Guard as soon as possible after the occurrence. The casualties that must be repormd are described in the federal regulations applicable to the type of commercial operation. Commercial vessels must contace the US Coast Guard Marine Safer Office at (808) 541-2070. For neighbor islands, contact a police officer ox the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation District Office or US Coast Guard Unit (DOBOR 2007). Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-96 Figure 2.10-1. Map Showing Number of Shark Incidents by Island, 1900-2004 2.10 Services and Human Health and Safety ~ DOBOR's [s]and of Hawaii District Office can be contacted at (808) 329-4997. In cases of diving injuries, shark incidents, or other nautical emergencies, one of the Q following should be contacted: the US Coast Guard at (808) 541-2450, emergency services at 911, or the State of Hawaii Department of Conservation and Resource Enforcement (DOCARE) at 643-DLNR (643-3567). The closest emergency care clinic to the Proposed Action site is at the 2,500' elevation mauka of Kawaihae in the town of Waimea at the North Hawaii Communiq~ Hospital located at 67-1125 Mamalahoa Hwy, Kamuela, HI 96743, ~ telephone (808) 855-4444. The closest emergency care clinic that is near sea level is at Hualalai Urgent Care located at 75-1025 Henq~ St #101, Kailua Kona, Hl 96740, telephone (808) 327-4357. An alternative emergency care clinic is Keauhou Urgent Care Center, located at 75-6831 Ali`i Dr #K9, Kailua Kona, HI 96740, telephone (808) 322-2544. if a SCUBA diver is suffering from "the bends," ehen hyperbaric oxygen treatment should be sought. A O h}'perbaric chamber is available in Honolulu at Hyperbaric Medicine Center located in the Nimitz Business Center at 1130 N. Nimitz Highway, Suite A-140, Honolulq HI 96817, telephone (808) 545-1909. 2.10.2 Impact Analysis Environmental Consequences Impact Methodology In evaluating the possible effects on emergency services and human health and safety within the ROi, the protocols of DOBOR and the USCG have been reviewed, as have SCUBA safet}' and the risk of shark incidents. Factors considered in determining whether the proposed action would have a significant impact on emeegenev services and human health ~ and safety include whether this action would result in any of the following: • Substantial effect on emergent}' services or public health and safem; • Conflict with DOBOR, OSHA, or USCG protocols, specifically health and safem ~ protections; • Pose a potential danger or harm to an}' Hawaii Oceanic Technology employees, visitors or the general public; and • Further reduce the capabilities of the USCG or other emergent}' services in responding to emergency calls. Factors Considered for Impacts Analysis Factors considered in determining whether an alternative would have a significant impact on emergency management included the extent or degree to which its implementation would result in the following: Q • Change any existing police, fire, oc emergent}' medical services; or • Require anp nc'ty police, fire, oc emergency medical services. Summary of Impacts Table 2.10-1 summarizes emegency management impacts. Q I Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-97 O 0 2.10 Emergency Services and Human Health and Safety Table 2.10-1 Summary of Potential Emergency Management Impacts i0 10 Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Dive Emergency 0 Nautical Emergency Incases when there would be beneficial and adverse unpacts, both are shown on this table. LEGEND: ~ = Significant impact + = Beneficial impact = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact N/r1 = Not applicable = Less than significant impact , O = No impact Proposed Action - Ma/ae Point 10 10 10 ~~ Less Than Significant Impacts Under Alternative 1 no significant impacts on emergency services or human health and safety axe anticipated. All Hawaii Oceanic Technology employees working at the fish platforms will be trained, certified, and experienced as appropriate to their tasks. A health and safe[}' plan will be developed for all open ocean actinides. The addition of an estimated 22 employees would not place a significant additional strain on existing emergency services given the substantial amount of recreation and other commercial activities that akead}' occur within the ROI. In case an aquaculture platform becomes inoperative while it is deployed, Hawaii Oceanic Technology will contract with a salvage compan}' that can provide 24/7 emergency response. An ocean sail, also known as a sea anchor, will be deployed to slow its movement away from the designated station. Onboard monitors will send a signal to the monitoring station that a problem has occurred and the salvage crew will be deployed. The Coast Guazd will be immediately notified. The Oceansphere monitors will dispatch a work boat to the area and the salvage ship will be on call. In most events the work boat will be able to restore the Oceansphere however, a salvage company will be called in the event the work crew can't handle the problem. The submerged position of the platforms will make them somewhat imvlnerable to severe weather; however the effect of a tsunami is hard to anticipate. "to the extent there is O sufficient warning, the platforms will be evacuated and removed from the danger zone if possible. However, even with all safety precautions exercised, there is always the possibility of an incident and thus a less than significant impact is anticipated. O O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-95 2.10 Emergency Services and Human Health and Safety Alternative 2 - Keaho/e Point Less Than Significant Impacts ~ Impacts under Alternative 2 axe sitttilax to impacts under the Proposed Action. Operations will be run in the same manner and less than significant impacts axe anticipated. Alternative - No Action O No Impacts Under the no action alternative, there would be no impacts as no aquaculture project would be undertaken and existing conditions would not change. 0 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Drag Environmental Impact Statement 2-99 ~ 0 2.11 Cultural Resources 2.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES O 2.11.1 Affected Environment Introduction/Region of Influence Cultural resources in Hawaii consist of Native Hawaiian traditional resources and historic properties ("historic properties" in federal preservation language is used for sites that are O eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]). These include prehistoric and historic (post-Contact, post-CE 1778) archaeological resources, historic architectural properties, cultural items, sacred sites, and collections subject to protection under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Executive Order 13007, and the guidelines on Curation of Federally Owned ~ and Administered Collections (36 CFR Part 79). The Region of Influence (ROI) for cultural resources includes all harbor structures and facilities utilized by the Open Ocean Aquaculture (OOA) operation and the proposed leased ocean areas for the OOA operations and offshore ocean platform site. In addition to the ~ ROI, the cultural history of the land on the shore adjacent to the Proposed Action site in North Kohala known as Pu`u Ulaula was researched to identify patterns of cultural activity, and identify native I-Iawaiian families and other kama`aina with historical associations with the land and adjacent sea. No new structures will be constmcted at the harbors for the purpose of this project This project will utilize existing facilities and structures within the ~ harbors. Native Hawaiian Traditions and Resources Native Hawaiian's ancestors were the first discoverers of the I-Iawaiian archipelago, and they continued to inhabit these islands For thousands of years prior to Western contact. Native ~ Hawaiians continue to maintain their strong cultural ties to the lands and seas, as documented in their oral and written histories, mythologies, genealogies, proverbs, songs and dances, and present day voyaging practices. Prior to Western contact, Native Hawaiians' sailed the waters of the Hawaiian archipelago in long-distance double-hulled voyaging canoes exploring, colonizing, and in some cases settling these remote islands. O 1'he ocean played an important role to Native Hawaiians, as it was used for resources and physical and spiritual sustenance in their everyday lives. Poetically referred to as ke kai popolohua mea a Kane (the deep dark ocean of Kane), the ocean was divided into numerous smaller divisions and categories beginning from the near shore to the deeper pelagic waters 0 (halo 195125-27; Kamakau 1976:11-12). Likewise, channels between islands were also given names and served as vital connections between islands as well as a reminder to their larger oceanic history and identity. In Hawaiian traditions, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and its surrounding ocean are O considered a sacred place, a region of primordial darkness from which life springs and spirits return after death (Kikiloi 2006). Much of the information about the Northwestern Hawanan Islands has been passed down from generation to generation and eventually documented. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-100 2.11 Cultural Resources e Through these sources, Native Hawaiians are able to recount the travels of seafaring ancestors between the Noxrhwestern Hawaiian Islands and the main I-Iawaiian islands and demonstrate the importance of the ocean in Hawaiian culture Q Native Hawaiian Culture and Landscapes Archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that the original settlers of Hawaii brought with them from the islands of central and east Polynesia seeds, roots, corms (underground stems, as in taro), and cuttings of a variety of plants of Southeast Asian and New Guinean Q origin. The plants that were brought to Hawaii had already proven capable of surviving long-distance voyaging during the millennia of settlement of the Pacific Islands and had adapted well to environmental conditions on the volcanic and coxalline islands of the South Pacific These plants include taro (kalo, in Hawaiian), the staple of the Hawaiian diet, and other plants that were unportant elements in the Hawaiian diet ox that were useful for Q medicinal, ceremonial, or utilitarian purposes. 'traditional economic plants that reached Hawaii from Asia or New Guinea include, among others, coconut (niu), breadfruit (`ulu), gourd (ipu), banana (mai`a), sugarcane (ko), kava (`awe), ti (kt~, and Indian mulberry (noni). Sweet potato (`uala), a native of South America, was brought to Hawaii by latex Polynesian voyagers and became one of the main crops grown in dryland areas. Q Agriculture and arboriculture, fishing, hunting, bud collecting, and other uses of natural resources provided subsistence Eor Hawaiians and became integral and focused parts of Native Hawaiian culture. These practices also played a large part in the traditional religious system. Native Hawaiian belief states that natural objects such as rocks, plants, and animals are kinolau (forms taken by supernatural beings, including gods) (Abbott 1992; Pukui and Q Elbert 1986). Dane, the great life-giver, fox example, is present in ko (sugarcane) and `ohe (bamboo); Kanaloa, the master of the sea, is present in mai`a (bananas) and in many sea creatures; Ku, associated with building and war, is present in niu (coconut), some marine animals, and trees; and Lono, the god of peace, planting, and fertility, is present in rain clouds, `uala, and `ipu (gourds) (Abbott 1992). Q The land was divided into areas called ahupua`a, then into smaller divisions called `ili `aina that were worked by individuals or families, with areas set aside and worked Eor the chiefs and other ali`i (elites) (Abbott 1992). An ahupua`a ideally included all the resources necessary fox subsistence, creating a system that maximized productivity and successful use of Q resources. In nearly all cases, an ahupua`a would have sufficient water to irrigate crops; enough upland (mauka) resources for Imnting buds and collecting forest plants and building materials; and coastal (makai) access for fishing and for harvesting other marine resources. Historical and archaeological data suggest that many more families lived and farmed inland than fished and lived along the shore (Abbott 1992). Products from inland areas were exchanged among members of the ahupua`a community for products of the shore and the sea, ensuring that all resources were available to all Hawaiians. Many archaeological sites (e.g, McAllister 1933; Sterling and Summers 7979) reflect an evolved system of resource use that included careful maintenance, sharing, and allocation of Q necessary resources at both the shore and inland. Shoreline fishponds (loko) were surrounded by stone walls with sluice grates that allowed fish and water to enter; in these Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-101 Q 0 2.11 Cultural Resources d ~o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~d ponds, fish were caught, grown, and harvested, often fox the ali`i. Inland, stone walls and earthen berms surrounded fields on slopes and retained soil and water in terraced agxiculmxal plots. Irrigation ditches (`amvai) carried water (wai) from mountain sources to irrigate pond fields (lo`i) fox many families, each allowed to use the water during specified times. The careful allonnent of water and other critical resources is integral in Hawaiian law, and most researchers consider the Hawaiian word for law, kanawai, to be derived from "wai" (Pukui and Elbert 1986). According to tradition, Native Hawaiians Eeel a spiritual and even a genetic connection to plants, specifically kalo, as they play a large role in their creation traditions (the Kumulipo). One version of this story describes how Wakea, [he sky god, coupled with his daughter, resulting in a stillborn and misshapen male fetus that was buried in the earth on the east side of their house (Enos 1998). From out of the ground where the baby was buried the kalo grew, nourished by the tears of his mother. When Wakea's daughter became pregnant again, she bore the fast human male, named Haloa. All future Hawaiians would be related to him, and consequently related to the kalo, the plant that grew out of Flaloa's stillborn brother. Many plants had multiple economic uses and were also used as offerings, again bridging the gap between subsistence and religion. Since nearly all plant species were considered kinolau (as explained, forms of supernatural beings), their uses and consumption were directed eventually, probably late in prehistory, by the kapu (taboo, proscription) system, which covered religion, social activities, exchanges, and interactions. It was this kapu system that the Europeans encountered when they fast arrived. With such direct links to plant life, much of Hawaiian religion and ceremony is centered around traditions regarding when to plant, fish, harvest, or process natural resources. This focus, incorporating the behef that "Native Hawaiian" extends beyond the human form, encompassing the natural landscape and forms of their gods held within earth, water, plants, and animals, implies that the definition of "ancestor" to Native Hawaiians includes every water source, geological characteristic, plant, insect, and animal that exists in any given area. Native Hawaiian Culture and the Ocean The ocean was deeply woven on a da}' to day basis with the life of Hawaiians throughout their history. The ocean is rich in cultural significance as embodiments of gods and goddesses, as well as the home of personal gods, or `aumakua. Traditional and customary practices of the ocean include many t}'pes of fishing, which were used Eox trolling, net fishing fox `opelu, bottom fishing, as well as thrownet, fishtraps and harpoon fishing from shore. Traditional use of coastal resources along the shoreline and intertidal areas also includes gathering of wana, `opihi, and various limu for consumption. Konohiki were those given the authority to manage the resource use in the ahupua`a, establishing boundaries, kapu seasons, to ensure good harvests fox ahupua`a tenants, and the local chief. Konohiki and the ahupua~a Konohiki fishing rights were part of the ancient Hawaiian system of land and ocean management. Hawaiian communities depended on the sea Eor protein to support themselves. Under the feudal system of the time, the land and its adjacent sea were claimed ~ by the king, who granted certain lands to high chiefs, who in mm granted certain places to lesser chiefs, in return for a portion of the products of the land and sea, as well as military d Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-102 2.11 Cultural Resources E support (Kosaki, p. 1). Over time, "konohiki fishing rights" also became to mean the "chiefs or privately owned fisheries" (Kosaki 1954: 1). a Framework for Identifvino Native Hawaiian Resources Native Hawaiian resources consist of properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a Native Hawaiian group. These include traditional cultural places/properties (TCP); prehistoric and historical (pre- and post-Contact) archaeological sites, which may include heiau (places of worship) and burial sites, traditional house sites and other gathering ~ places, and work sites and other special-use sites; and plants and animals used for subsistence and other cultural purposes. As defined by the NPS, TCP s are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP "because of [their] association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in the community's history, and (b) axe important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community" (Parker and IQng 1990). "Throughout Hawaii, there are many sites that are not ehgible fox inclusion in the NRHP but are still considered areas of traditional impartance (ATI) because they are rooted in the 0 community's history and are important in maintaining cultural identity. "These ATI are also considered for analysis. Overview of Hawaiian Prehistory and History The Hawaiian Islands were settled between 100 and 800 CE from central or east Polynesia, probably from the Maryuesas Islands. The greatest population expansion in the islands occurred between 1150 and 1400 CE, and archaeologists believe that during the latex part of this period Hawaiian culture became quite complex. During this time, powerful lineages of high chiefs of Oahu and Hawaii were founded. Additionall}', agriculture expanded and intensified during this period (e.g., Allen 1991, 1992; Allen et al. 1987; Handy and Handy with Pukui 1978; Hommon 1976, 1986; Kirch 1985). In West hohala area, initial settlement occurred in approximately 800 - 1000 CE. There is historical evidence of small fishing settlements along the shoreline of this region consisting of house sites, canoe hale, small gardens, walls, all connected by a coastal [tail. (Bonk 1968 and Newman 1968). Fresh water was apparend}' very limited, but could be found in springs, ~ water caves, dew fall and catchment to irrigate gardens. These fishing tillages likely focused daily life on the ocean and used the ocean near here for fishing purposes. Significant settlement begins approximately 7400 through 1850 including permament and temporary habitations, burials, heiau, trails, and holua. (Maly undated in UH-DURP 2005) Legendary references to Kohala Waho axe found in He Moolelo no Makalei, which was published in Ka Hoku O Hawaii from January 31 to August 31, 1928 and describes a story set in the 11~ century CE about the creation of the most Eamous caves of the North Kona region (Ke ana wai o Makalei). The moolelo includes information about the practices and traditional knowledge of Kohala O Waho, as translated by Maly (Maly 2005 in UH-DURP 2005) including: Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-103 Q ~ 2.11 Cultural Resources Po'a 'aha (a type of braided fzberJ was used as a racing Raton. Fzrhing far malolo (dying fzsb~. Fishing war regulated Gy .reason, malolo seae~ons ended when ahi (yellow fin ~ tuna began. Ahi f:rhing information: Ured sir ka'au (240) of ~alonawoven mulberry fber~, bailers, watergaurds, 'ai pa~a (pot bundles), patio (sinker Iz~nesJ. Ko'a proscribed fishing area) accessed using triangulation (kaulana). ~Opelu is used as bait Canae.r used to fish for ahi had woven sails (palaumoena) and wooden masts (kia~. Kukui nut was chewed then rpit on the water to enable fishermen to see the bottom. To ~~, Q fish the :4wini ko~a, with its Kohalapehu winds, one had to said all the way to Hana Maui to turn around. Other winds used were the Malani and Oninipua (also known as the Kuakualaeo). Ahi was given, traded, offered as sacrfface to ancestors and cordage, as well as cut ap and dried, as well as given to villagers. The winds off of the ocean of Honopue were dangerous to fishermen. (Maly 2005 in UH-DUkP 2005). This moolelo describes the relationship between leeward and windward Kohala, translated in Maly ((2005) in UH-DURP (2005)) as follows: Leeward (Kohala Waha) was known far its expert fishermen. Ahi fshing was the major '~ ~ work of the leeward coast, Kohala wa.r noted for itr abundance. Abi was said to control the `inoku, kalana, the ahupua ~a, the ko ~ele" of Kohala Waho, was sought after in all ~zx du7ricts of the island of Hawaii. It was understood thatAumakara Lawa'ia and Ku'ula (ancestral fishing deities) observe fthermen to make suro proper protocol is followed to give away fish freely to all those who assist fn the catching: canoe carriers, ~ elder fishermen, cordage makers, etc. Windward Kohala (Kohala Lakof people were known to be agricultural speciak~str. Exchange between the two was importanfi in the story, Makalei',r fishing skill brought an abundance of fash, which were traded with farmers firm Halawa, Makapala, Nfaek~'i, Waiapuka, Polodu, and Honokane. Chiefly names k~sted corroborate the Mamiki article inference that place names in Kohala Waba are dzrived from chiefs: Makalei meets chiefs named Puakea, Pu'uonale and Kokoiki an ~ his jourey to Kohala Waho. Kapa'au was the name a~a racer (kukini). Kohala was noted to have four dzvisians, one of which was said to be the ~idima land tone of the ;9pa'apa'a wind (mentioned in Makalei'r pu~a chant). Makalei competed against Kapa'au, the champion of Kukuipahi (Chief of Kohala Lako) for the control o_ f Kohala Waha"(Maly 2005 in UFI-D URP 2005). Place names in the North Kohala area are described in this moolelo: `7n Kohala Lako, in the rrplandr of Pu'uepa, was mentioned to be a center far chiefly sports. Associated with this district was a kahua le'ale~a (contest area), the playing of ~ ke'a pua (sugar cane tarsel stems), puu noa (a bide and guess game played with rocks and kapa bundles), and racing, which seems to have been an important game far the chiefs. Place names and land uses in Kohala Waho named included. Kahei, which had mo~aina (cultivate dry land parcels), 'ilina wai'ole (drys waterless lands), bono (sheltered areas) and 'uala pu'e (sweet potato mounds) (Maly 2005 in UH-DURP 2005) Maly provides a translation of what the moolelo describes as ties between natural phenomena and traditional knowledge for the North Kohala area as: 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-104 2.11 Cultural Resources Star constellationr were used (Pleiades, here mentioned as Huhui, not Makalx~'i) Lo determine when to a'et sail an Lhe fishing canoes, for during the high paint of the n.rzng of Huhui, "the wind blows with frequent lulls." The Apa'apa~a minds cause waves to Creak in white ridges, forcing one to land at Ha'ena. The Awrni ICa'a was accessed only when the `kahalapehu"wind was not blowing for it created unusually lage waver; the sitie of houses. The month of Kohalapehu wind was Hik~na during raining season. This wind was thus known for it pelted the natives and destroyed canoes. The time to catch obi was in the months of ICaulua and Nana: it said that during this time the water it calm, birds take flight (to show where the schools are, uhu are out in abaardance near the cliffside. More traditional knowledge of the months ltrted as it relates to fasbing conditions in Kohala Waho: ICaulua avas said to have had temperamental weather, rain and sun intermixed, the month of Lkutva is a Lime of Lhunder;~ Nana is the time when there is no storms, when the ocean zr calm. Tbu is the ideal time to, fzsb. " ~Nlaly 2005 in UH-DURP 2005) ilnother legend Ka'ao Ho'oniua Pu'uwai no I{a-Miki, serialized in the Hawaiian language newspaper from 1914 to 1917, was set in the 12~h - 13~h century. This is translated in outline form in a report by Maly (Maly undated in UH-DURP 2005) staring that Kohala Wabo had a large population extending from the rea to upland koai'e and mamane forestr, with awa, sugarcane, banana plantations in the uplands and ftshing on the toasts. Kabala was ruled by two chiefs during this time: Kapa'au-eki-a-ICcrlana and Hikapola. Hika often organitied .porting events. The names of the characters in this story coincide with place names of Kohala wabo including Hikapolaa ~Alii nui of Kabala ~ tvabo), 'Upolu (pukaua orgeneral), Honoipu ('alapa ar competitor fn athletic contests), Ho'ea (kukini or runner, Puakea (koa or warrior), Kukuipahu (wife of Hikapoloa~, Ha~ena, Awalua, Kcpa'a Kapuba~a, and Puu~epa (olohe or lua warriors and lesser chiefs), Kahua and Kai'opae (Chiefs and guardians of Lrrmaloloa~, L~emaloloa l(Llaster competitor and faghter for Hikapoloa~, and Kepaka~ili~ula (child of Hikapoloa and ~ Kukuipahu) (Maly, undated) in UH-DURP 2005. A Preliminary Chronology of North Kohala in the UI-I DURP 2005 North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Landscape Study provides a description of the legendary past related to this area taken from Tomonari-Tuggle 1988: 8-9): Papa and Wakea are considered the residence of Oakea and Opapa (Wakea and Papa)... the gad and goddeu who made Hawaii and al! the others of this group of islands (rn Damon 9927: S4). Pa'ao is credited with the estabk~shment of a new political and religious order, which set severe sanctions for religious observance emphasitiing the separation of chief and commoner. Pa'ao brought with him Pili-Kaaiea, a Tahitian chit to rjuvenate the royalAli'i lone This line of chiefs, from which the Kamehameba dynasty emerged is one of 6be three Idnes of de.rcemt through which Hawaiian ale"I traced tbeirgenealogier; the other two are the 'Ulu and Nana~ulu lines (Halo 9951: 6). Pa'aa u afro credited with the construction of the Mo~okini Heiau at Pu'uepa. (UH-DUMP 2005). Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-105 ~ 2.11 Cultural Resources ~ A Preliminary Chronology of North Kohala in the UH DURP 2005 North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and I-Ieritage Landscape Study provides a description of early settlement for this area: Initial utilisation, probably by a small founder population, is characters{ed by a rbort- Q ternt or transient occupation mainly near ocher subsistence resources, primarily along the coast. Dispersed and spaced pattern of isolated coastal communities as a result of exploiting the best-unoccarpied environments. It is sarggested that initial settlements occurred in maximum nsaurce hones such ar the kola gulches. A description of the leeavard coast isgiven for this time by Bosendahd (7972: 445).• "...from sea level fio aboad Q 1300 feet in elevation (10 to 40"annual rainfall, the setting was an acid to semi-and rocky slope dominated by pila~ grass... to the virtual exclusion of mast other flora species. The upperportian of Lapakabi, extending up to about 1800 feet, probably corresponded to the lower limits of an open, mixed dryland forest, which dominated the further mauka leeward slopes of the Kohala Mountains. Narrow fingers of forest would have extended ~ further makai, below the general forest Izmits, fn the relatively maistergulches and gully channels (sited in Tomonarz-Tuggle: 12-13f. A sequence of occupation far the leeward coast of North Kabala bas been offered by Tuggle and Griffrn (7973: 61, 63): Between c. _All 1450-1500 two major events occurred. an expansion in the upland area and the development of dryland agncukure; and constrzrction of the great Wall° and adjacent platforms in the hamlet of Kaaie. Thes events were interpreted as indicators of the development of IQpakaln~ as a distint e'acial and political unit with distinct social classes and consolz~dated power. By c. AD 1600, settlement was expanding along the coast in conjunction with intensification of the upland field yd'tems. Tuggle and Gnffen (7973: 63J attribute the expansion of settlement, and the intensifcatian of marine resource exploitation and upland agriculture, to Lhe demand of a strattfied social ystem. By AD 1778, resource production had reached ids peak and the population began to decrease. Much of the upland agricultural ystem and coastal habitations oudride the hamlet were abandoned by the early 1800s. (LJH-DUMP 2005) ~ Kirch (1994) says that as Hawaiians left the windward valleys and moved to more arable lands, these field systems became of primary importance. The Kohala field system developed over about a 350-year period, from A.D. 1450 -1800, and was followed by a rapid collapse and abandonment after European contact (Kitch 1994). (} Bill Bonk did an archeological survey of the coastline from Kawaihae to Mahukona in 19(8. In describing the area of Pu'u Ulaula, he describes two major bays in the area with evidence of more houses -one at Waiakailio Bay (at the southern end of the Pu`u Ulaula region of coast), and another bay to the north, which was probably \X/aiwaionu Bay at Puaiki and Puanui ahupua`a. '0 Waiakaib~o Bay undoubtedly was an important settlement in the prehistoric a.r well a.r historic period. Prehistoric house silee', canoe sheds and other remains of ancient man are ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-106 2.11 Cultural Resources e interspersed with the remains of mare recent activity. A avindmill for purrrping water from a well as still to be teen there together with the more recentfoundation for a gasoline driven motor pump. This bay war undoubtedly a fairly important location for the ,shipping of C cattle. (Bonk 1968: 21) "Many of these small coastal indentations might readily have served as loading points Eor the shipping of cattle." (Bonk 1968: 31). Bonk describes a typical house site in the area or Waiakailio Bay as ~ Two cairns avithin the walled yard probaGly resarlted from the pik~ng up of rock in the clearing of the yard. The yard itse f it divided onto a lower and upper portion. This resaelts from anorth-south wall through theyard. Probably the lower western section was used far planting. Two walled enclo.rttres in the southwestern portion of the site, one 15 ~ feet by 15 feet, the other 11 feet by 13 feet may have been used as pens. Another platform at the far southwestern portion of the site probably was also used as a kalua. (Bonk 7968: 28). Bonk also mentions numerous canoe sheds associated with house sites (Bonk 1968). E Bonk does not mention anything at Malae Point itself. But, going further north, Bonk discovered a small bay with remains of several houses, burials, canoe houses. This was probably Waiwaionu Bay at the Puaiki and Puanui almpua`a. Bonk notes that At a small bay north ofMalae Paint fs an excellent landing place for canoes. Numerous ~ stone walled structures and a few scattered rock graves are found in and around the bay. Pieces of coral are scattered on these graves. There are numerous small inlets along this coast, many with small coral pebble beaches. Tbls Coastal region contains some very excellent fzshing grounds. Uhu ~Parrol fuh) are ~ epedally numerous along Ibis coast Fubing certainly must have been one of the important reasons for settlement along this mast in prehistoric times. Little change has been Hated in this regard, for during our three week period in the field, not one day passed without seeing at least one fcrhing boat offshore. Shore fishermen werz alto in abundance and the remains of their sojourns latter the Boast with the cultural debris of our modern E age. Another reason for attracting terrzporary orpermanent resadentr to this area was the protection afforded by the Kohala mountains to the coastal region of the southern par! of north Kohala. I was told on more than one occasion that the area between Ihaiakailio Bay and the point south of Keaweula Bay it normally well protected even during those periods when coastal areas to the north and south have heavy wands, resulting m choppy ~ seas. The southern section of north Kabala coast however, normally is protected by the trade winds. The sea is therefore relatively calm during a goad portion of theyear and ae~ a result this is an area where small boats might normally heave to if threatened by high seas. (Bonk 1968: 36-37) Coastal dwellers harvested the sea in a variety of Fisheries, and they grew plants using what limited fresh water they could obtain. And they depended on trade with the mauka dwellers C Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-107 C ~ 2.11 Cultural Resources who would trade meat and produce for fish (Ho`opai 2008, Akau 2008). To the Nor[h of Malae Point is the bay of \X/aiwaionu, which is very well protected bay. Puaiki ahupua` is ~ adjacent to Ki`iokalani. In the next ahupua` [o the north at Puanui, there was a larger settlement here as indicated by the substantial historic remains described by Bonk (1968). llescxiptions of early fishing and farming on Hawaii Island in 1778 provided by Newman (1968) present data indicating that the maximum depth to which the Hawaiians were able to d fish was 1,200 feet (350 meters) below the surface; the water area of the Hawaiian Islands of depths less than this figure is extremely limited (Newman 1968). There are only about 500 square miles (800 square kilometers) of inshore waters surrounding Hawau Island less than 600 feet (200 meters) in depth (Bryan 1954:4). If the slope from the 600 feet to the 1,200 foot contour is about the same as from 0 to 600 feet the maximum ocean area usable for Q sub-surface angling around Hawau Island is roughly 1,000 square miles (1,600 square kilometers). (Newman 1968) Newman opines that "the actual area exploited by native fishermen would undoubtedly have been greatly less because of bottom conditions, water currents, swell systems, and inadequate 0 habitat conditions to support the types of marine life normally exploited by the Hawauans." (Newman, 1968: 11-12) Newman described the marine biota as follows: "the sect of tha geological feature on the marine biota is Veen in the division of the waters ~ surrounding the Hawaiian Islandr into three basic habitat types: the pelagic, benthic, and inshore ar reef area, each with its characten.rtu fauna. The pelagic habitat, finite uniform in temperature and sak~nity, ranger from the surface to perhaps 600 feet (200 meters) in depth and is located in the open sea offshore from the Islands (Gosline and Brock 7965: 6). Comparatively few species of fsb are foarnd in the pelagic habitat and those exploited Q by the Hawaiian were surface feeding carnivores such as malola, `ahi, aku, ono, mahimahi, and kaku. There is afro an inshore pelagic ~neritie~ tione, defzned by Got&ne and Brock (1965:7) as the upper water layers when Lhe total depth is less than 600 feel (200 meters) in depth. In this subtione are often found the usualpelagic epecies as well as others restricted to this tione, .rucb as the akule, Spelu and kawakawa. Tlie benthic, ar Q bottom habitat, it the sea fTaor at d pths from 180 to 900 feet (SO to 300 meters) in which the full fauna is only poorly known (Gosline and Brack 1965:7). 1 he inshore or reef habitat extends from the above surface .plash and surge paolr to a depth of about 180 feet (50 meters) (Gos&~ne and Brock 1965:5). As noted above, this area it quite limited in extent in the Hawaiian Islands because of the steepness of the underwater base. Only ~ in embayed areas such as ILineohe Bay on Oahu does the horitiontal extent of the done exceed one-half mile (0.8 kilometers). The largest marine hiamasss (total living weight) it found in this inshore habitat and it was the habitat most extendvely exploited by Hawaiians, as will be shown in Chapter III. "(Newman 1968: 12J. ~ Newman noted the predominance of fishing on the leeward side of Hawaii Island in his statement: "Historical studies also show that most fishing tended to take place along the leeward coastlines although this may have also been due, in part, to the difficulties of fishing O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-108 2.11 Cultural Resources ~ the inshore waters of the windward shores. Poi example little fishing was described by Ellis (1963) for the windward coastline of Hawaii Island in 1823 although fishing was very unportant in leeward areas." (Newman, 1968: 15). C In his journal of 1823 under the entry: "Kawaihae Back North 1"oward Mahukona by Thurston, \y/illiam Ellis writes, "The coast was barren; the rocks volcanic; and Mr. Thurston was informed that the inhabitants of the plantations, about seven miles in the interior, were fax more numerous than on the shore. (Newman, 1968: 288): Newman notes: L^ "Phis distance is erroneous for that would place them on the other side of the Kohala Mountains -probably more like 2-3 miles" (Newman, 1968: 250). In looking at the information fox the late eighteenth century, Newman notes that "Careful research through the journals of Cook, Clerke, King, Anderson, Samwell, Buxncy, (~ \X/illiamson, and Edgar, however, yielded only scant materials on sea exploitation. (Newman, 1968: 52). Early nineteenth century fishing techniques were described in the diary of Archibald Campbell, who observed Fishing by net, hook and line and poisoning during his stay on Q Oahu during 1809 and 1810. Campbell notes that the hooks were made of pearl ox turtle shell and [hat uon trade fishhooks were coming into general use. "The only type of hook and line fishing mentioned was trolling with the pa t}'pe lure for aku, `ahi and mahimahi. Campbell noted that the fish lines were made of olona, spun into lines by rolling the fibers between the hand and thigh" (Newman, 1968: 50). Newman (1968) recounts John Papa II's description of early nineteenth century fishing in Hawaii. Ii was born in 1800 "...and served in the Kamehameha I household under Liholiho, the son of Kamehameha L He describes tlus account: Kamehameha wa.r often .Teen fishing with hit fishermen in the deep ocean, where the tea Q was shallow, and where fish poiron plantr were used. He took care of the canoe Jraddlers who went out for aku fsh, banging in suppk~es from the other islands for them and ,rent ships to and fro ~etcbing nett, lanes, along hers and other things (p. 69 - Ii in Newman 1968: 57). O Kamakau, who was born in 1815, and was a native historian about the earher period of the life of Kamehameha I. He described fishing techniques during this early nineteenth century period as: There were deep d'ea nett far fishing (aumaiewa), shallow tea nett for fzthing (IauleleJ, nett Q for fishing Gy diving (`upena-lu~u~, fishing by enticzng into the net by meant of a stick with a strong odor (lawai `a melomelo), aku trolling with mother-of-pearl hooks (lawaa `a- a-bi-akuf, obi trolling with hook and lone (hi-ahi~, net fzthing from flying fish ~hano- malolo), trolling far kabala ~uh with book and line ~hi-kahala), and several other kinds" (p. 776 Kamakau in Newman 1968: 57) ~ Hawau Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Dra/t Environmental Impact Statement 2-109 ~ 0 2.11 Cultural Resources blalo, Ii, and Kamakau "...tend to substantiate one another and depict the use of seine /bag net combinations, bag nets used alone, melomelo bait sticks, fish poisoning, handheld diver's ~ nets, trolling for aku with the pa lure as well as hook and line fishing for `ahi and kabala." (Newman 1968: 51). Newman (1968) notes that Q Middle nineteenth century sea exploitation has been well and authoritatively described by A. D. Kahaulelio rn the Hawaiian-language xewspaper, Ka Nupepa Ku~oko'a. These articler have rime been translated by Mary Pukui and the translation manuscript is to be found in the Bishop Musecrm La'brary (Kahaulelio, 1902)...It Will be seen that many of the techniques described by Berkley and Cobb from the late nineteenth century are also ~ descrzbed by Kahaulelio, for this earlLerperiod ~1Vewman 1968: 42-43~. The techniques described by Kahaulelio included spearing, hand collection, basket traps, nets and hook and line. Spearing, hand colletion and basket traps "were described by Kahaulelio in terms quite similar to those of the late nineteenth century authors, making it certain that 0 the same general techniques were in use throughout these two time periods." (Newman 1968:. 43). In the 17~h and 18~h centuries, poetical strife became common in the islands, as meng chiefs battled for dominance. By 1700 CE, the islands had developed the social structure that Q would greet Europeans on their arrival, with population centers, royal centers, temple complexes, and intensive dryland and irrigated agxiculmre (Fornander 1996; Ii 1963; Kamakau 1992; Kolb 1991; Malo 1951; Tomonari-Tuggle 2002). Political power became increasingly concentrated, culminating in the development of multi- island chiefdoms in the late 1700x. In 1778 Captain James Cook was the first European to ~ arrive in Hawaii, followed by European and American traders looking fox supplies and trading opportunities. The influx of European and American trade goods, including cannons and other heavy weapons, influenced Hawaiian politics in the end of the 18~h century and beginning of the 19.h century. By the time of his death in 1819, the legendary Kamehameha I was ruler of all the Hawaiian Islands (Fornander 1996; Kamakau 1992). Post Confact Historical Overview American and F.,uropean missionaries began arriving in 182Q, at approxhnatcly the same time that the ancient kapu system collapsed. An influx of settlers, traders, and farmers brought about great changes in Hawai`i's social structure, economy, and natural environment. It was in 1839 that the fast offtcial recognition of konohiki fishing rights was made by Kamehameha III when he passed "An Act to Regulate Taxes," which divided up ancient fishing rights giving "one portion of them to the common people, another portion to the landlords (konohiki) and a portion he reserves for himself' (Laws of 1842, section 8, Chapter III). The konohiki, or overseers of ahupua`a (land divisions providing complete ~ land and sea provisions Eox Going in them) was given the right to regulate fishing in the waters adjoining his ahupua`a "from the beach at low watermark to the edge of the reefs and, where there was no reef, to one mile seaward of the beach" (Muxakami in MacKenzie (Ed) ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-110 2.11 Cultural Resources ~ 1991: 175). The other grounds outside the coral reefs are to open to all -the Kilohe`e ground (area where squid was spotted and caught using a hook and line), the Luhe`e ground (area where squid were too deep to be seen but were caught with cowry shell lures), the Q Malolo (flying fish) ground, together with the ocean beyond. In addition, the king kept for himself certain species from the fishing grounds seaward of the reefs. (Murakami in MacKenzie (Ed) 1991: 174) The konohiki, or overseers of ahupua`a (land divisions providing complete land and sea provisions fox living in them) was given the right to regulate fishing in the waters adjoining (; his ahupua`a "from the beach at low watermark to the edge of the reefs and, where there was no reef, to one mile seaward of the beach (Murakami and MacKenzie 1991: 175). The Great Mahcle was a land redistribution system put into place beginning in 1845, redistributing and privatizing land all through the islands. The development of commercial (y agriculture (ranching, sugar, and pineapple) resulted in waves of new immigrants, including Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, and Filipinos brought in to work the plantations. Meller notes that "During the division of lands at the time of the Great Mahele, title to konoMki Fisheries normally was not part of awards made by the Land Commission. "The ~ Land Commission did not decide on the question oE..fisheries, except as incidentally to its other duties." (Meller 1984: 8). In 1851, a major revision of this law was passed "which unequivocally granted all fishing grounds pertaining to any Government land or otherwise belonging to the Government to ~ the people fox the free and equal use of all persons" (Kosaki 1954: 2). In 1859, the I-Iawaii Legislature passed the Civil Code of 1859, and codified laws pertaining to konohiki fishing rights in sections 387 and 395 (Kosaki 1954: 2). Kosaki notes that As evolved through theyears, the muin feataeres of konohiki fishing rights are as follows: ~ 1. Certain areas of the sea, from the m fs and, where there happen to be no reefs, from the distance of one geographical male seaward to the beach at low watermark, are the private ~sberies of the konohikir. Z. Wzthin these private ocean fisheries, ftshing is restricted to the konohikir and the haa`ainas, or tenants of the landr (ahupua`af to which the fisheries were originally attached. 3. The konohikis can regulate the fishing within the fisheries by one of the following two E metbds: (a~ By selling aside orplacing a tabu on one .rf~ecifc type of ft.rh for their exclusive use; or (b) After consultrition with tenants, by prohibiting fishing dunng certain months o~ the E year and, during the fishing season, to exact from each tenant one-third part of all the fishes caught in the fishery. " (Kosaki, 9954: 3-4) Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-111 Q 2.11 Cultural Resources As part of the process started in the Great Mahele, in 1873 and 1878, the Boundary Commission gathered information on the ahupua'a Exom informants to determine the Q disposition of the lands. The coastal region east closest to the Proposed Action site is Malae Point and the area around it. Malae Point is the boundary of two ahupua'a: Kaihooa and Ki'iokalani. To the south of Malae Point axe the ahupua'a of Pohakulu and rlhulula. Further to the south is the p Pu'u Ulaula region including Kalala (1&2), Makiloa and Pahinahina. To the north of Malae Point is \X/aiwaionu Bay which includes Puaiki ahupua'a and Puanui ahupua'a. Further to the north is the Keawanui Bay region including Keheaa (1&2), Kipi and the Kaupalaoa ahupua'a. For the purposes of this analysis, the six ahupua'a surrounding Malae Point are further anah~zed to learn the names of the ahupua'a and places on them. ~ In the UH DURP 2005 North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Landscape Study there axe two tables which provide information on the names of the ahupua'a, places associated with these ahupua'a. One table is entitled: `Boundary Descriptions Table" and [he other is entitled: "Kohala Boundary Claims Data Synthesis Part I -Kohala Iwaho O (Outer Kohala)" (UH-DURP 2005). There were three informants that provided this information named Kekuaaea (1878), Pohakuauli (1878) and Kanaha (7873 and 1878). (DURP 2005). ~0 ~~ ~~ 0 O Fig. 2.11 - 1. Information on six ahupua'a in coastal region around Malae Point (UH-DURP) Ahupua'a Meaning Boundary Description (from Land Ownership (from "List name informants as noted, referenced in of N. Kohala Ahupua'a" in DURP 2005) DURP (2005)) Puanui Big Kanaha (1873) notes areas used Land Court Award 9971:20 to Flowers for cultivation as well as ancient \W. P. Leleiohoku, currently road systems. This ahupua'a was owned by B.P. Bishop Trust, noted as having ancient fishing leased to Ka'ike o Ka'aina. rights extending out to sea. Puaiki Small Remmed by L. Kamehameha, Flowers xemxned by aupuni, became government land, [he makai parcel deeded to Kahua Ranch in exchange for other mauaa lands. Ki`iokalani Statues Kekuaaea states: "thence to Land Court Award 8519-B:2 of the Ahuliilii, a resting place. The to Fanny Young, ahupua'a I-Ieavcns compass was put here to sight to acquired by Kahua Ranch, Puulepo; thence makai to Pukoae, and makai parcel now owned a xesrin lace; thence to Malae, a O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-112 2.11 Cultural Resnurcas point at the shore; bounded makai by Ponoholo Ranch. by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea..." (Vol. B:276 in DURP 2005). Pohakuauli stated at the same rim that Kiiokalani was "bounded makai by the sea, where we went fishing; we had to give fish to the Konohiki..." (Vol. B:277 in Boundary Descriptions Table of DURP 2005) Kaihooa Returned by L. Kamehameha and Leleiohoku, Returned by aupuni, became Government Land Pohak-ulua Double '/z returned by E. Kekela, no Stone Land Court Award, '/z returned by E. Kekela, returned by aupuni, became Government Land Ahulua Government Land, omitted in the Mahele e C OE the six ahupua~a, two (Ki`iokalani and Puanui) had place names noted in Boundary ~ Commission testmonials that were translated and provided in the DURP 2005 report table entitled: "Kohala Boundary Claims Data Synthesis Part I -Kohala Iwaho (Outer Kohala) (UH-DURP 2005). Figure 2-11 - 2 describes place names in the Ki`iokalani ahupua`a and Figure 2-11 - 3 describes place names in the Puanui ahupua`a. Figure 2.11-2 Place names in Ki'iokalani ahupua'a from Boundary Commission testimonials (UH-DURP 2005) Site name Description Informant Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-113 O O 2.11 Cultural Resources O ~Q ~fl ~0 ~Q ~~ ~~ O Puulepo ("pIill of Dirt") Located just above govt road to Kekuaaea, 1878 Kawaihae Anuliilii ("A Little Bit Cold") A resting place Kekuaaea, 1878 Puukoae (I-Iill of the Koae A resting place Kekuaaea, 1878 (either a bird or a banana variety) Malae (Serene) A point on the coast Kekuaaea, 1878 Kaihooa Pohakuauli, 1878 Kunohohuiwai ~ place to set water calabashes Pohakuauli, 1878 Ki`iokalani ("Statue of the A kauhale (traditional housing Pohakuauli, 1878 Heavens") complex) was noted as having the same name as the ahupua'a Keeokalani This place was located on [he shoreline, Kanaha, 1878 and seems to be the same name of the sand at this site. Puuokawa Place name Kanaha, 1878 ~lhuapaoo Name of a Eaxm site, or mahina ai Kanaha, 1878 Keanakaluapuaa Possibly associated with a site Eor Kanaha, 1878 cooking pigs Kealakapala Place name Kanaha, 1878 Koaiea 2. kihipai or smaller land division in an Kanaha, 1878 ahupua'a Puupuleha The name of the house si[e of the I{anaha, 1878 informant Figure 2.11 - 3 Place names in the Puanui ahupua a from Boundary Commission testimonials (UH-DURP 2005) Site name Description Informant O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-114 2.11 Cultural Resources C Puanui Areas used for cultivation as Kanaha, 1873 well as ancient road systems. this ahupua~a was noted as having fishing rights that extended out to sea I{ihelea Located near a road to I{anaha, 1873 Puuhue Hill Wawahonu A point on the shoreline Kanaha, 1873 near a landing area Pohakupuloa Place Name Kanaha, 1873 Luakii A spring located at the Kanaha, 1873 mauka end of this ahupua'a I{aihoa Place Name I{anaha, 1873 Malohaumia The cultivation area of the Kekuaia, 1873 informant C fi Q Q Of these six ahupua"a, two of them are noted as having fishing rights that extend out to sea at that time: Ki~iokalani and Puanui. In addition to these two areas, the next closest area of konohiki fishing rights was further north in the ahupua~a of Kehena, which was noted as having ancient fishing rights extending to sea (DURP 2005 "List of ahupua~a in N Kohala"). a As presented in the analyses by Kosaki (1954), Mellen (1984) and Maly (2003), through this period of the Great Mahcle, the Boundary Commission hearings, and up to the 1893 resolution and Hawaii Organic Act in 1900, konohiki fishing rights went through a process of being formally recognized, and subsequently hmitcd in scope and number. A revolution in 1893 replaced the monarchy with a provisional government and then a republic, which was annexed to the United States in 1898 as a territory (Dorrance and Morgan 2000; Kuykendall 1968; Tomonui-Tuggle 2002). 0 The 1900 Hawaii Organic Act contained specific sections that repealed most exclusive ~ fishing rights and made fishing open to all citizens. If anyone claimed exclusive fishing rights, these must be registered. In 1904, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the intent of Congress in this regard when it stated in re Fukunaga, (16 I-law. 306, 1904) that, ""1'he intent of Congress is clear to destroy, Q so Ear as it is in its power to do so, all private rights of fishery and to throw open the &sheries to the people." Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-115 Q O 2.11 Cultural Resources At the time of the annexation of I-Iawaii, it could not be accuratel}' determined how many private fisheries existed in the Territory (Bishop v. Mahiko, 35 Haw. 608 (1940) in Kosaki Q 1954: 9). Of the estimated 300 to 400 private fisheries, about 100 were registered (Kosaki 1954: 9). Despite the fact that the 1873 and 1878 Boundary Review Commission records noted konohiki fishing rights Eox Ki'iokalani ahupua'a, Puanui ahupua'a, and Kehena ahupua'a, a 0 review of copies of records compiled by the office of the Territorial Surveyor of all registered fisheries provided in Kosaki (1954) shows that no exclusive fisheries were registered in this uea of North Kohala. If the fishery was not registered, then, according to Bishop. v. Mahiko, the right became invalid. (Kosaki 1954). Therefore, it is assumed that there are no konolvki fishing rights in this area of ocean adjacent to the Proposed Action site. ~ It was in the late 1880s that ranching started as a major land use in this region surrounding Malae Point and the Pu'u Ulaula area. A number of ranchers began to work the lands including Holmes, Burchardt, McGuire, Austin and Frank ~X/oods. (Schweitzer 2003, pp. 197-199) ~ The development of ranching as a major land use in the region was advanced in 1928 with the establishment of Kahua Ranch by Atherton and Monty Richards and Ronald von Holt, which included about 12,000 acres of land. (Schweitzer 2003). This included fee simple and leased land under ranch management Among these leased lands is the Pu`u Ulaula region known as the Pahinahina lease, which has been leased by Kahua for pasture purposes fox ~ generations. This lease extends from Kaihooa ahupua'a in the north to Pahinahina ahupua'a in the south. Kahua Ranch acquired Ki'iokalani ahupua'a and used it as pasture, and transferred tide of the makai parcel to Ponoholo Ranch. Monty Richards has been with Kahua Ranch Eor fifty-five years. For tlurry years, he was President and General Manager. Monty is the nephew of Atherton Richards, cofounder of Kahua Ranch. In the 1980s, there 0 was an amicable separation and part of Kahua Ranch, including this area, was split off to form Ponoholo Ranch, an 11,000 acre ranching operation currently mn by Pono Von Holt, the son of Ronald Von Holt, co-founder of Kahua Ranch. In 2002, Monty passed the reins of Kahua Ranch to his son, Tim, who is now the President and General Manager. Q Because of this historical association that Monty Richards and Pono Von Holt have with the Pahinahina lease, and Ki`iokalani, local kupuna, William Akau recognized that Mont}' Richards and Pono Von Holt would be the modern-day caretakers ox konohiki of the area of ocean where the proposed lease site is located. Akau emphasized that Kahua Ranch and Ponoholo Ranch own or lease all the ahupua`a in that area and have ranched the land there fox generations. He said that the Ho`opai family should be consulted since they have been Q the Hawaiian paniolo family using the area for generations. He also said to talk with some longtime fishermen in the area, who have been targeting `opelu, mahi, ono, and bottomfish. It's important to recognize that according to records of all registered fisheries in the office of the Territorial Surveyor, none were located off Ki`iokalani ahupua`a, or other ahupua`a in the Pu`u Ulaula region of North Kohala. So, there axe no legal konohiki rights or registered ® fisheries in the area. Rather, Richards and Von Holt are recognized as konohiki in the sense of being the stewards of the land in the area. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-116 2.11 Cultural Resrnircaa To the North of Malae Point in the small bay of Waiwaioau, bounded by IG`iokalani ahupua`a and Puaiki, the ahupua`a adjacent to Ki`iokalani to the north. Puaiki ahupua`a was transferred by IGng Kamehameha III in "An Act Relating to the Crown, Govemment, and Fort Lands, in 1848" to become the lands of the FIawaiiau Govemment. After the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, the lands became part of the Territory of Hawaii. And, after statehood, the lands became part of the state of Hawaii. The ahupua`a mauka of Akoni Pule Highway is leased to Parker Ranch under Revocable permit 5-3219. The parcel of land in the Puaiki ahupua`a that is makki of Akoni Pule I-Ighway was transferred in 1967 by the State of Hawaii to Kahua Ranch in exchange for the State obtaining other Kahua Ranch land for highway purposes under Grant 5-14,716 to Kahua Ranch, Ltd. "the mauka ]ands of Puaiki ahupua'a and Puanui ahupua'a were ]eased by Parker Ranch and used as pasture. Adjacent to the north of Puaiki is the Puanui ahupua`a, where there was a larger settlement as indicated by the substantial historic remains described by Bonk (1968) and Clark (1968). The I`r land was awarded to William Pitt Lelciohoku through Royal Patent 8161, Land Commission Award 9971, Apana 20. Leleiohoku, a Prince of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in turn willed the land to his &xst cousin, Princess Bernice Pau'ahi Bishop, and the land is now part of the Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate land holdings. The current lessee is Ka'ike o Ka~aina, a nonprofit educational and cultural organization, whose President is Michael Hanohano. This is a nonprofit native Hawaiian group of kupuna dedicated to education and cultural ~ programs for keiki. Mx. Hanohano'_e also the greatgrand-nephew of \X/.P. Leleioboku. In summary, the dominant use of the shoreline area around Malae Point and the Pu`u Ulaula area has been associated with ranching, and recreational and subsistence use by the paniolo families from Kahua Ranch since the Ranch started in 1928 (Ho~opai, 2008). Cultural Resource Summary Consultations and Reports A cultural impact assessment study was prepared using the Guidelines fox Assessing Cultural Impacts adopted by the Hawaii Em*ironmental Council in 1997 (OEQC 1997) to ensure compliance with Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes. This included substantial research of ~ historical docmnents, which provided the basis for the previous sections describing the history of the site and surrounding coastal region. The Cultural Impact Assessment also included interviews with selected individuals who are familiar with the cultural practices and features associated with the project area, then arranging Eor interviews with each individual. The interviews included a request for describing their famil}' genealogy history and their ~ relation to the land; about stories and times they associate with the land, historical and cultural resources, practices and values associated with the project site and surrounding sea and land; any memories they have of the ]and and the ocean in the area; an}' cultural values they associate with the land or ocean in the area. The interviews also included asking fox the interviewee's perspective on the potential impact on culmra] resources, practices, values of p the proposed project, as well as suggestions for others to consult about this area of land or ocean. Notes and transcripts for each meeting are being prepared and returned to interviewees for review, correction and release as part of the Cultural Impact Assessment The following individuals were interviewed to gather information about the region adjacent ~ to the Proposed Action site: Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacutture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-117 O 2.11 Cultural Resources 1. William Akau, was first contacted as the former harbor master of Kawaihae, and recognized as the Native Hawaiian kupuna and konohiki of anything to do with the ocean in ~ the Kawaihae area. Mr. Akau provided an oral history interview. I-Ie was born in Kawaihae, and his father was born in Kawaihae uka, just mauka of the village. 2. Monty Richards, owner of Kahua Ranch, was identified by Mr. Akau as the konohiki of this area of ocean since Kahua owned and leased all the land in this region fox generations. Q Monty, who is the nephew of Atherton Richards, who co-founded the Kahua Ranch in 1928. ~~ I QO ~~ ~~ ~~ 3. Pono Von Holt, owner of Ponoholo Ranch is the son of Ronald Von Holt, co-founder of Kahua Ranch in 1928 with Athenon Richards. Pono is also recognized as the konohiki of the region, especially since Pono Holo Ranch owns Ki`iokalani makai parcel. 4. The Ho`opai family members axe Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners at IG`iokalani and the surrounding area since 1928 taking care of the land, ranching, camping, fishing, gathering, and perpetuating native Fawaiian history, cultural values and traditions to the next generations. Kimo Ho`opai is recognized as the last of the old-time paniolo in this area. He was born at Kahua, where his father started working in 1938. 5. Kimo's wife, Leina`ala also was born at Kahua, where her father started working in 1928 when the Ranch was formed. 6. Bernard Ho`opai is their son, who also works Eor Kahua. With Bernard's grandchildren carrying on the paniolo tradition, the Ho`opai family is a fifth generation Native Hawaiian paniolo family working for Kahua Ranch. 7. Eddie "Lala" La'au is recognized as the kupuna opelu fisherman in the Kawaihae area whose father and grandfather also fished these waters before him. He is a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner and provided an oral history interview. 8. Kwanji Fukuyama is recognized as a long time bottom fisherman. \Vhen in season, he targets onaga, opakapaka, ehu and the other four of the seven bottom fish species. Kwanji also trolls for ono and mahimahi. Robert Cambia, Sr. is a long time `opelu fisherman, who had previously fished for bottomfish provided a consultation. His father-in-law was Takeo Yamasaki, who started fishing about 50 years ago and fished actively until about 20 years ago. Robert fished with his father-in-law fox many years. He fished for `opelu, woke, uku, trolled Eor mahi and ono, and sometimes bottom fish.. Another individual that was consulted was Michael Hanohano, who is the grandnephew of IX/illiam Pitt Leleiohoku, the Land Commission Awardee for Puanui ahupua`a, just north of Malae Point. He is a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner who is President of the nonprofit O group, Kahiki o Ka Aina, who is the lessee of Puanui from the landowner Kamehameha Schools -Bishop Estate. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-118 2.11 Cultural Resources T1te Alternative 2 Site that was analyzed foe this project was also included in a supplementary study in the attached Cultural Impact Assessment that considered the potential cultural impact of that site. To understand the cultural resources and potential impacts on these C cultural resources in that Kona site, the research relied on previously conducted interviews of kupuna in Kona. The oral history interviews were done by Kepa Maly and,induded: George Kahananui, Lily Ha~anio-Kong, Peter Park, Robert Punihaole and Valentine Ako. These oral history transcripts were collected by Kepa Maly in I~r I-]ana Lawai~aA Me Na ICo'a O Na Kai ~Ewalu, A History of Fzrbing PratFzcer and Marine Farbener of the Hamaaian Irlandr, (The Nature ~ Conservancy, 2003). In addition the notes from meetings of Kona Blue Water Farms with Kekaha kupuna regarding the concept of the proposed open ocean fish farm, which were used to obtain input on traditional perspectives and cultural issues. (KBWF'2002). The various historical research documents used in the course of this study are listed in the C bibliography included with this report. Additional information is available with the Cultural Impact Assessment appended to this report. Prehistoric and Historical Resources of the Prooosed Action site adiacent ocean area. and adiacent coastal area Document research and oral history interviews have not provided any oral tradition, legend, ~ or cultural activity associated with the preferred ocean lease site in Kohala off Malae Point in particular. There are no resources within the Region of Influence (ROI) that axe listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (NPS 2007). The site is fax offshore and interviewees have noted that it is not used for trolling, net `~ fishing, `opelu fishing, bottom fishing, or other cultural practice. While no fishing usually takes place in the proposed action site, fishermen from the bottomfish fishery located about one mile away, bare expressed the concern about potential negative impacts on the fishery from waste and excess feed reaching the bottom environment. Other Fishermen have also expressed concern about the platforms causing an increase in sharks in the area, that would ~ affect their fishery-. Interviews with kupuna fishermen noted, and bathymetric charts confirm, that there is no underwater feature in the area of the ocean lease site that would serve to attract fish (Akau 2008, La~au 2008, Cambra 2008, Fuku}-ama 2008). They confirmed that in this part of the ~ ocean, the cultural resources and practices of trolling, `opelu fishing, bottom fishing, and shoreline harvesting were all concentrated in coastal waters within 1 to 2 miles from the shoreline. (Akau 2008, La~au 2008, Ho`opai 2008, Richards 2008). Cultural activities today are a modern reflection of the same cultural activities of ancient times, including fishing in the coastal waters, and Erom the shoreline. `Opelu koa were well known to the master ~ fishermen, who tended these ko`a to prepare the fish for harvest during its proper season. Interviewees noted that there were `opelu ko`a fishing grounds all along this part of the coast, within Yz mile from shore at locations close to Waiakailio Bay, all along the Red Hill (Pu~u Ulaula) area to Black Point (Malae Point), and Waiwaionu Bay at Puanui, and beyond to Keaweula Bay all the way to Mahukona (Akau 2008 and La`au 2008). ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-119 O O 2.11 Cultural Resources In addition to the `opelu, fishermen would also troll along the 30 - 40 fathom contour For ono, or other target species (Akau 2008, La`au 2008, Ho`opai 2008, Richards 2008). ~ Fishermen would also fish for aku, during its proper season. And fishermen would also target onaga and other bottom fish (La`au 2008, Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008). "1'hcse `opelu ko`a axe very important natural and cultural resources and could be considered as an ATI. They axe located over two miles away from the proposed ocean lease site. Bottom Fishing extended out to about the 150-160 fathoms, or about one mile from the Proposed Q Action site (Fukuyama 2008). Even though the 1873 and 1878 Boundary Review Commission records noted konohiki fishing rights for IQ'iokalaru ahupua'a, Puanui ahupua'a, and Kehena ahupua'a, a review of copies of records compiled by the office of the Territorial Surveyor of all registered fisheries O provided in Kosaki (1954) shows that no exclusive fisheries were registered in this area of North Kohala. If the fishery was not registered, then, according to Bishop. v. Mahiko, the right became invahd. (Kosaki 1954). Therefore, it is assumed that there are no konohiki fishing rights in this area of ocean adjacent to the Proposed Action site. ~~ ~~ ~~ To provide some cultural context fox the preferred ocean lease site offshore Malae Point, this analysis looked to the land closest and due west of the ocean lease site for information. There are numerous remains of historic dwelling sites found along the shoxehne at several sites dispersed along the Pu`u Ulaula region as described above and detailed in Bonk (1968). Two major settlement areas were at Waiakailio Bay and Waiwaionu Bay. To the north was another settlement at Keawanui Bay and a large settlement at Lapakahi. Information on the six ahupua` in the Malae Point area are presented above in Figure 2.11-1. In the 2005 study completed by UH Department of Urban and Regional Planning (UH- DURP) entitled, North Kohala Coarta! Cultural Reroarce and Heritage Iltndreape Study, reviewed all the archeological surveys of leeward Kohala coastal area and provided a list of place names associated with two ahupua`a of Ki`iokalani and Puanui (see above Figure 2.11-2 and 2.11-3). There were no designated or recommended pro[ective buffer zones for historic sites recommended at Malae Point or in the ocean lease site area. Along the shoreline is a section of the Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail, that connects ancient and modem trails along [he shoreline and mauka-makki. The Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail recognizes the significance of the coastal trail and its corridor as a cultural resource that shaped the Hawaiian culture. ~~/hile the Pu`u Ulaula area of Nox[h Kohala is included in the designated Trail system, it is outside the priority area for implementing the 15 year planning period fox all alternatives in their recent Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (AKNHT- NPS 2007, p. 5) Maps in this document showing the North Kohala region of the Trail note that the land in the Pu`u Ulaula area is government owned land, except for Ki`iokalani. The map names the area "Kahua Ranch, Ponoholo Ranch (Malae Poin[), and indicates there was a possible lateral trail along this coastline (AKNHT -NPS, 2007, p. 99). There is a trail that goes mauka-makai in the Ki'iokalani ahupua'a, and a partial coastal trail along the shoreline (Stevens 1994 in UH- DURP 2005) O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Drak Environmental Impact Statement 2-120 2.11 Cultural Resources "1"he shoreline is used for camping, fishing, gathering for recreational, subsistence, and culmral purposes (F-Io~opai 2008), (Hanohano, personal communication). The coastal waters are used for `opelu fishing, and trolling for male and ono, and bottomfishing for onaga and C other bottomfish. A primary cultural value that was stated by the Ho`opai `ohana and shared by Monty Richards, Pono Von Holt, Robert Cambra, Kwanji Fukuyama, William Akau and Lola La`au is to take care of namre and it'll take care of you. Bernard Ho`opai said, "You have to take care of namre and it'll take care of you. You need to give back. The more you give back, the more it'll take care of you." (Ho~opai 2008). Similar statements can be seen in e Richards (2008), Cambra (2008), Fukuyama (2008), Akau (2008)'and La'au (2008). Potential for Unknown Resources in Proposed Action site and adjacent shore Based on historical document research, oral history interoicws, and observational surveys, there is no documentation or memory of existing or possible culmral resources in the ROI. ~ Nonetheless, it is possible, though highly unlikely, that furore surveys and research may reveal then presence, at which point further studies and documentation may be undertaken. CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 SITE OFF KEAHOLE POINT. KONA Prehistoric and Historical Resources of the Alternative 2 site and adjacent shore O The coastal lands on the shore closest to the alternative site are the lands of Kalaoa and `O`oma, which are both part of the broader coastal region called Kekaha. In prehistoric and historic times, there were numerous fishing communities that lived along the coast, including one at Ho`ona (now a Historic Reserve) at Kalaoa near Keahole Point, Wawaloli and `O`oma to the south. Additional habitation sites are found continuing south through Kohanaiki, ~ Kaloko, I-Ionokohau, all the way to Kailua. The Journal of William Ellis in 1823 included a description of Kailua, the larger settlement several miles south of the Keahole area in the following passage. While it is not specifically the same place, it does give one an indication of how the coast in this area was populated. Kainra, though bealtly and populous, as destitute of fresh water, except what a found in pooh, or small streams, in the mountains, four or five miles from the ,chore. (p. 29) The house., which are neat are generally built on the sea-shoe, shaded with cocoa-nut and kau Lrees, which greatly enliven the scene. The environment were cultivated to a considerable extent, small gardens were seen among the barren rocks on which the houses are built, ~ wherever soil could be found suffzcient to nourish the seetpotato, the watermelon; or even a few plants of tobacco, and in many placer these reemed to be growing literally in the fragments of lava, calleo7ed in small heaps around their roots. The next morning, Messrs. Thurston, Goodrich and Hanvoad walked toward lbe mountain , to visit the high and cultivated parts of the district. After traveling over the lava for about a mile, the hollows in the rocks began to be filed with a kght brown soil.• Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-121 ~ O 2.11 Cultural Resources and about half a mile further, the surface was entirely covered with a rich mould, formed by decayed vegetable matter and decomposed lava. The path nave lay through a heautiful ~ part of the country, quite a garden compared with that through which they had parsed on ftrst leaving the town. It was generally divided into small fields, aboutftfteen rods square, fenced with low stone walls, built with fragmenfr of lava gathered from the surface of the enclosures. Those fields were planted with banana, sweet potatoes, mountain taro, paper mulbery plants, melons, and sugar-cane, which flourished larxuriantly in every Q direction... (Ellis, 9963) In Kona, the stories from fishing activity identified nearshoxe and offshore fisheries, including stories about opelu fishing, collection of opae ula fox fishing (Ako, Valentin, et al, p. 52) and travel and trade between the makai fishermen and the mauka farmers within an O ahupua`a ox its neighbors. George Kinoulu Kahananui, Sr. described `opelu fishing in the North Kona area, shark fishing, nearshoxe fishing (Kahananui, George, p. 226- 238, etc..), especially the area between `O`oma and Kaupulehu, which includes Keahole, the lands of Kalaoa and Kekaha. I~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Walter Paulo described `opelu fishing and the maintenance of the `opelu ko`a. He notes in his interview that the opelu ko~a is "...maybe hundred to hundred fifty feet...I would say about a 9uartex mile offshore." (Paulo, pp. 291-292). Paulo describes the effect of Pish Aggregation buoys on opelu ko~a "You going to attract if you have a buoy them and you attach a netting like on it, it's to attract the small fishes. You are going to find 'opelu over there." But he also notes he is in favor of fish aggregating devices when asked what he thought of them: "It's very good provided you can find it. But they do attract, why they put it in that depth it attracts ono, it attracts mahimahi." (Paulo, p. 293). He also described various bottom fishing and the introduction of long line fishing in Kona. He described aku and `ahi fisheries in the North Kona area and also discussed trolling for aku a mile or less offshore (p. 307) Paulo also talks of fishing fox aku at the "hundred fathom ledge or fifty, this aku comes up." (Paulo, p..319). Kepa Maly notes in this interview It is very interesting, in the old Hawaiian laws that you see in the traditions, and the stories of travelz~nggreat dislances to go out and fuh. The large canoes, mostly ala~'i kindr of things. By 9839 when you see lbe laws that Kamehameha III enacted, and as they carried through in snhsequent laws. They always reference going ouF as far as the malola fishery and into the high sear beyond. You'll find just that warding, they talk about the `apapa fishery, the kilohe e, malola, and Lhe deep sea, the high seas. IY/e know that there it a tradition of the kupuna making great use of the resources near and far (1'aala, p. 399). O Paulo also reiterates a common Hawaiian cultural value: "You have to malama this aina. Because it takes care of you. and it is the same with the ocean and the ko'a i'a. Take care of them because they take care of you." (Paulo, p. 327). Peter Park discusses the fisheries of the area near Keahole (Kaloko - ~Ooma -Kalaoa area) and discussed limu collecting, ~ nearshoxe fisheries, trade of fishermen with families of the uplands. (Park, pp. 373 - 390) O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-122 2.11 Cultural Resources Valentine Aka speaks of fishing in Kona to depths of more than 7,000 feet for "maguro," which he describes as "that's the one goes up to fifteen hundred pounds." (Aka, p. 422). He describes opelu fishing close to shore, and marked the 41 fathom contour in an interview C with Kepa Maly (Aka, p. 437). Ako discussed aku fishing Ear from shore. He notes they would go out twenty miles to find the aku to catch, (Ako, p. 425) Ako also spoke specifically of Keahole and the currents faced in the waters b}' the point. (Ako, p. 425-426). He also spoke of fishing for 'opakapaka, ehu and other species to depths of more than 900 feet. (Ako, p. 428) Ako spoke of going out to "The Keahole lighthouse, about a mile outside of E Keahole lighthouse...These were our fishing grounds and beyond that. It all depends on the current.." (Ako, p. 430). Ako also criticized the Fish Aggregating Devices, and recommended getting rid of them. (Ako, p. 441-442). Ako discusses akule fishing in the nearshore area (Ako, p. 450-453) and fishing for other species in the nearshoxe area (Ako, pp. 457-469) E Robert Punihaole spoke of `opelu ko`a being two or three hundred feet from shore (Puniliaole, p. 529). He also spoke of going fishing far from the sight of land (Punihaole, p. 532). But, he also spoke of fishing in Ms youth being three ox four miles offshore (Punihaole, p. 533). Punihaole spoke of the treacherous current at Keahole (Punihaole, p. O 533). He described the shoreline fishing as Its for the ohana, tbat'.r food for the family. But when me go outsade moanq its opelu, aku, ulaulrr, opakapaa, all this water...ICukaula ifyou'regaing for 'ahi you go hundred twenty, hundred forty for ahi. Fathoms....Hundred eighty fathoms. If you ga for Sda`ula, eighty fathoms. Yau ga for ahi bola, not the kznd `ahi `ele`ele fs may dawn, ~ hundred forty, hundred tbirFy fathoms. The `ahi holobolo, halo i maenq is ford fathoms. You go kaka drop fort fathoms. You start from thirty nothing, then you hit fort, you mark your Iz'ne. As soon as the fish came up you huka up, put in the boat, you bait `em, partyour kaka let go the pohaku. You notgozng get a pohakar, you going gel the obi. (Punihaole, pp. 534-535). ~ Punihaole talked about [rolling for aku (Punihaole, p. 535) in the deeper waters, and fishing for luhe'e and a variety of finfish in the nearshoxe waters (Punihaole, p. 570). Along the shoreline of Kekaha is a section of the Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail, that ~ connects ancient and modem trails' along the shoreline and mauka makai. The National Trail recognizes the significance of the coastal trail as a cultural resource that shaped the Hawaiian culture. The Keahole Point area is designated as an area with "High Potenfial Cultural Sites and Complexes" and is described as follows: "Keahole Point to Kaloko Ahupua`a includes small clusters of permanent houses, associated graves, small heiau, and temporary shelters (~ including Wawaloli - `O`oma habitation cluster that exemplifies the ancient and historic periods (AKNHT-NPS 2007, p. 23). Based on the analysis of these oral histories, it appears that most of the fishing in the Kona area took place nearshore, within a mile from shore and mostly within Yz mile and along the ~ shorehne. In addition, there were recognized fisheries in the deep water going to over 1000' for ahi, 900' for opakapaka and ehu (Ako p. 428). One interviewee mentioned fishing in his Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-123 O O 2.11 Cultural Resources youth at three or Eoux miles offshore. (Punihaole, p. 533) This is reflected in modern fishing practices, with vessel survey observations and survey reports fishermen saying that they fish O all over the Keahole Point area including out to deep water trolling in the area offshore North Kona at the 1000 fathom contour (Rizutto 2008), which is located about three miles offshore. Interviewees and cultural historians cited in the Kona Blue Water Farm Environmental O Assessment noted that there were no `opelu ko`a at the area of the Kona Blue \Vater Faxm lease site (KBWF 2003, p. 68). Using this same information, as well as the data from Ako, Paulo, and others, it can be concluded that the closest `opelu ko`a would be near the shoreline, located over two miles from the lease site. This distance, as well as the depth of the waters in the area of the Alternative Lease site offshore Keahole Point would result in very limited potential to affect the behavior of nearshore fisheries, like opelu. Nonetheless, O Walter Paulo was clear that even the FADS caused opelu to gather away from the ko~a (Paulo, p. 293) . Therefore an evaluation of this potential impact should analyze the data from the Cates International, Inc. moi farm off Oahu. The site is about 2 miles offshore, but in s'hallowex waters. ~ Potential for Unknown Resources in the Alternative 2 site and adjacent shore Due to the lack of documentation of existing ox possible cultural resources in the ROI of the Alternative 2 site, it is possible that future surveys and research may reveal their presence, at wMch point further studies and documentation may be undertaken. 0 2.71.2 Environmental Consequences Impact Assessment Methodology ~ The methods for assessing potential impacts to culmral resources include identifying significant cultural resources in the areas of potential effect (APES) under the proposed action and determining potential direct and indirect impacts on these resources. Maps and other documents were examined to determine the locations of the project APES. O Historical and current maps and photographs, cultural resources reports, and archival records were reviewed to identify cultural resources in the APES. Federal, state, and local inventories of historic (i.e., significant) places, including the NRHP, were reviewed Eor O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-124 2.11 Cultural Resources information related to prehistoric and historical (pre- and post-Contact) resources considered NRHP-eligible. C Factors Considered for Impacts Analysis The factors that determine the significance of potential impacts to cultural resources in an APE are determined based on the Eederal laws and regulations that set the standards for cultural resources protection. An undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect on a historic property when it diminishes the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, ~ materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects include, but axe not limited to, the following: • Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property; • Isolation of the property or alteration of the character of the property's setting when E that character contributes to the property's yualifications for the NRHP; • Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property, or changes that may alter its setting; • Neglect of a property, resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and ~ • Transfer, lease, or sale of a property without adequate pro~rision~ to protect its historic integrity. Native F-Iawaiian sites, including sacred sites, burials, and cultural items, whether or not they are considered NRHP-eligible, may also be protected under the American Indian Religious 0 Freedom Act (AIRFA), ARPA, or NAGPRA. Factors considered in determining whether an action would have a significant impact on cultural resources include the extent or degree to which its implementation would result in the following: • An adverse effect on a historic property or TCP as defined under Section 106 of the Q NF-IPA; or • A violation of the provisions of AIRFA, ARPA, or NAGPRA. Public concerns are also considered as part of impact analysis. The concerns expressed by the public during previous analyses emphasized the following needs: continuing access to ~ traditional and religious sites for ceremonial purposes and to hunting and gathering areas; protecting and preserving archaeological and traditional sites; interpreting significance based on Native Hawaiian tradition and the knowledge of community elders; and complying with federal and state laws and regulations conccming cultural resources protection. Summary of Impacts Table 2.12-1 summarizes impacts to cultural resources. 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-125 O O 2.11 Cultural Resources Table 2.12-1 Summary of Potential Cultural Resource Impacts ~ Impact Issues Proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Historic buildings N/A N/A Q N/`~ Archaeological resources N/`~' N/A Q N/A TCPs/ATIs ~~+ ~~+ ~ Incases when there would be beneficial and adverse impacts, both are shown on this table. bfitigatlon measures would only apply to adverse impacts. LEGEND: = Significant impact + = Beneficial impact = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact N/A = Not applicable = Less than significant impact = No impact Proposed Action - Malae Point ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Less Than Significant Impacts TCPs / ATIs: This section presents an analysis of the potential effect of any proposed physical alteration on culrural resources, practices or beliefs; the potential of the Proposed Action to isolate cultural resources ox practices ox beliefs from their setting; and the potential of the proposed action to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which culrural practices take place. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources have been identified in the Proposed Action ocean lease site as eligible or listed as a nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Document research and oral history interviews have not provided any oral tradition, legend, or cultural activity associated with the preferred Kohala ocean lease site in particular. The site is far offshore and interviewees have noted that it is not used specifically for trolling, net fishing, bottom fishing, or other cultural practice (Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008, La`au 2008). The area may be used by fishermen trolling from the nearshore ono lane to offshore fishing grounds. There are no historical documents of any official registered konohiki fishing rights in the area. In[erctiews with kupuna fishermen noted, and bathymetric charts confum, that there is no underwater fearuxe in the area of [he ocean lease site that would serve to attract fish (La`au 2008, Akau 2008). O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-126 2.11 Cultural Resources In the ocean area adjacent to the proposed ocean lease site, cultural activities today are a modem reIlection of the same cultural activities of ancient times, including fishing in the coastal waters, and from the shoreline adjacent to the Proposed Action site. `Opelu ko`a C were well known to the master fishermen, who tended these ko`a to prepare the fish for harvest during its proper season. Interviewees noted that there were `opelu ko`a ftshing grounds all along this part of the coast including \X/aiakaiho Bay, Red Hill (Pu`u Ulaula) and Black Point (Mahe Point). These opelu ko`a are very important natural and cultural resources and could be considered ~ as an ATI. The ko`a are located over two miles away from the proposed ocean ]ease site. Two `opelu fishermen said they did not expect there to be any affect of the proposed aquaculmre operation on the `opelu ko`a (La`au 2008 and Cambia 2008). Other fishermen thought that there might be some affect on `opelu migration patterns (Fukuyama 2008). ~„ Interviewees with master fishermen in the area noted that there were no opelu ko`a at the proposed ocean lease site, but there were ko`a about two miles from the site, located within 'h mile from the shoreline along the Pu`u Ulaula area. Two fishermen expressed a concern that the FADS caused `opelu to gather away Erom the ko`a (Paulo, in Maly 2003: 293 and Fukuyama 2008) . However, others felt that the distance from shore, as well as the depth of ~ the waters in the area of the proposed ocean lease site would result in less potential to cause anything other than temporary effects on the behavior of nearshore fisheries, like `opelu (La`au 2008 and Cambra 2008). This concern was evaluated by analyzing the data from the closest comparable in Hawaii, the Cates International, Inc. moi farm off Oahu. The farm site is about 2 miles offshore, but in Q shallower waters than the proposed ocean lease site off Kohala. Fishermen on Oahu originally expressed opposition to the establishment of the fish Earm; now however, they are reportedly very supportive of its presence (K13WF 2003). The opelu fishermen, particular, have reacted positively to the farm's presence, because of the benefits that it has brought in terms of increased catches and regularity of catches. Evidence from the 'Ewa Beach fish platform is that opelu may be attracted to the platform for some periods, but that the schools still do move up and down the coast (Cates 2003). While it is unknown whether there is any change in the overall abundance of `opelq or rather only in distribution, the platform wID probably not exclude opclu from the opelu ko`a ,located over two miles away from the platforms. In addition to the opelu, fishermen troll for mahimahi and ono, and target bottom fish in Q the fishing grounds in an area limited to the coastal waters between Puako and Mahukona (Cambra 2008, and Fukuyama 2008). Fishermen would troll along the 30 - 40 fathom contour for ono, mahimahi or ocher target species, which places the trolling lanes over two miles from the proposed ocean lease site. Bottom fishing for onaga in the area of the ocean lease site extends out to 150 fathoms, which places the closest bottom fishing area about one Q mile Erom the proposed ocean lease site (Fukuyama 2008). Bottom-fishing season opened in November 2008. During bottom fishing season, an increased number of boats bottom-fishing is expected out to 140-150 fathoms (Fukuyama 2008). ~X/laen these fishermen are not bottom-fishing, the}' may be trolling for ono and mahimahi along the 30-40 fathom line parallel to shore. With all these changes one Q fishermen summarized the situation saying, "the &shing is hard -there are plenty fishermen now, more fishermen than fish -the area is kinda almost wiped out" (Fukuyama 2008) Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-127 Q ~ 2.11 Cultural Resources Among the interviewees, there was agreement on the location of cultural resources, such as ~ opelu ko`a, trolling areas, and bottom fishing areas, and the culmral landscape of the coastal lands. There was agreement that the proposed ocean lease site is deeper than the areas used fox bottom fishing and `opelu. There was agreement that the area is not specifically targeted fox trolling, though it may be used Eor rlolhng by boats in transit Exom neaxshore Fishing areas to offshore trolling areas. ~ There was agreement that the platforms may attract opelu, but that it would not have a permanem affect on the opelu fishery. There was agreement that the platforms would probably attract mahi and ono and other fish. There was agreement that fishermen should be able to fish for these Fish around the platforms. Some individuals thought it might have a beneficial impact on fishing, especially trolling, and make it easier for people to fish for mahi and ono. However, other interviewees warned of a potential negative impact on bottomfishing (Cambra 2008, and Fukuyama 2008). There was concern that the proposed aquaculmxe operation would intermpt the migratory patterns of bottom fish, as well as mahi and ono (Fukuyama 2008). This concern was based in part on the assumption that some food will escape the cages and attract fish. Fukuyama warned that the Oceanspheres would attract the bottomfish away from their usual grounds because of the "smell and bits of Eood" that would drift to the bottom. He predicted there would be more sharks in the area, which would mean more shark predation on bottom fish and, in his words, "It will be the end of bottom fishing in this area" (Fukuyama 2008). ~ The issue relating to any "smell" and "bits of food" reaching the bottom environment are issues evaluated in the DEIS section 2.4 on water quality. To mitigate this potential impact, the analysis presented conclusions that no waste or excess feed will make it to the bottom environment, therefore it should not attract bottomfish to the site. This will help mitigate any potential negative impact its operations may have on bottomfishing in the area. Q At the same time this concern was expressed, it was also expressed that no one was really sure if it was going to have a positive or negative impact until the aquaculmre operation is estabhshed. Everyone agreed that there would have to be some monitoring to see if it's having an impact or not, and continuing dialog with the fishing community. ~ There was also concern that the proposed aquaeulmre Eaxm might attract more sharks to the area with the increase in the number of fish around the cages (Akau 2008, Fukuyama 2008, Cambia 2008). Bottom fishermen expressed concern about this increase in sharks and its negative effect on then fishery. A specific concern was that more sharks will eat more bottomfish, as well as steal the catch off the fishing lines (Fukuyama 2008). To Hawaiians, ~ the shark is a sacred animal, and is considered a member of their ohana. As noted in the section 2.5 on Biological Resources, shark management is an important issue addressed through a managemen[ plan as described. The shark management plan for the aquaculture farm should only use measures to keep the sharks away from working divers that are respectful to the animal within the cultural context. The presence of the open ocean aquacultuxe platforms would likely reduce access to areas that fishermen would otherwise have had open access to in the past. 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Drak Environmental Impact Statement 2-128 2.11 Cultural Resources ~s noted in the section 2.5 on Biological Kesources, fishing would also be allowed around the Oceanspheres, just not above them ox below them. Boaters are asked to keep 100' from C the navigation light on the surface buoy above each Oceansphere. Tlus is a mitigation measure to provide direct benefits to local Fishermen through the potential for increased catches around the aquaculture operation. As discussed above, to determine how the proposed activity might affect the traditional cultural values and practices associated with the adjacent land area, hveh~e ahupua`a in the ~ area were researched in the area locally known as Pu`u ulaula (Pahinahina to Kaihooa) and Black Point (Malae Point) (Ki`iokalani, Puaiki and Puanui), including identifying and contacting all the known and identified cultural practitioners and kupuna, local landowners or long-term lessees, the recognized konohiki of the area and the native Hawaiian families culturally attached to the land. Nor the interviewees who camped and shorefished along the shoreline adjacent tp the proposed site, they were asked to assess the impact of the proposed action, alternatives, and mitigation measures on the cultural resources, practices and beliefs. In the interniews, each of them said it wouldn't affect them at all. They each emphasized that the site was fax offshore, in deep water that is not used fox any cultural activity, such as fishing, and was not in the path of any cultural activity such as voyaging. They also noted that the distance from shore resulted in the proposed project having no impact on the viewshed from the coastal trails and camps. They said there are already boats that regularly traverse the ocean closer to shore, so a few more boats won't make a difference. In other words, the interviewees with cultural associations with the adjacent land all agreed that the addition Hof the proposed project's work boats and the tops of Oceanspheres, will have no impact on the cultural resources, practices and beliefs of the coastal lands (Richards 2008, Von Holt 2008, Ho`opai 2008, Hanohano 2008). A primary cultural value that was stated by the Ho`opai `ohana and shared by other interviewees is: "You have to take care of nature and it'll take care of you. You need to give back. "1'he more you give back, the more it'll take care of you." (Ho`opai 2008). Bernard ~ Ho`opai encouraged the aquaculture farm to give back to the environment and cotnrnunity. Cultural practitioners and kama aina wide multi-generational connections to the land on the adjacent shoreline also noted no positive or negative impact of the proposed action on their activities (Ho`opai 2008, Hanohano 2008, Akau 2008, Von Holt 2008, Richards 2008). O Interviewees also noted thaC there may be some positive impac[ of the proposed project as a modern example of stewardship of the ocean showing how technology is helping provide fish from the sea, now that the fishing stocks have been depleted (Ho`opai 2008, Von Holt 2008, Richards 2008). Ec-en though dais was not expressed by the interviewees, other Native Hawaiian individuals ~ and groups could perceive that the presence of this industry, the OceanspheYes, the increased level of activity, the navigation lights and buo}'s may contribute to or diminish the connection with their ancestors and disrupt the balance of Native Hawaiian areas of traditional importance. Based on an analysis of issues, potential impacts and mitigation measures, it is concluded that ~ there would be no significant impacts to cultural resources, practices, or beliefs in the proposed ocean lease area off Malae Point, or in the surrounding ocean in the Kohala area. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-129 ~ O 2.11 Cultural Resources 10 ~~ ~0 ~~ ~~ IO No Impacts Historical Buildings and Archaeological Resources. There axe no historical buildings or documented archeological resources within the ROI. The exclusive control over the waters (and the fish) inside the net platforms is consistent with traditional and culmral practices that identified fish traps or lobster traps -and the animals therein - as the private property' of the trap owner. "1'he same principles would apply here. Beneficial Impacts The presence of the platforms may result in a greater concentration of fish aggregating nearby the Proposed Action site, which would have the potential beneficial result of increasing catches for fishermen in the area. The company has announced it will allow fishermen to fish adjacent to the Oceanspheres, thereby allowing them to catch the fish that would potentially aggregate around the Oceanspheres. Interviewees noted that there may be some beneficial impact from the proposed action if it serves as a Fish Aggregating Device to attract fish around the Farm's platforms (Akau 2008, La`au 2008), while other fishermen disagreed and felt that it was not beneficial for the platforms to act as FADS (Fukuyama 2008). culmral practitioners and kama`aina with multi-generational connections to the land on the adjacent shoreline noted that there was no foreseeable positive or negative impact of the proposed action on rhea activities (Ho`opai 2008, Hanohano 2008, Akau 2008, Von Holt 2008, Richards 2008). Interviewees also noted that there may be some positive impact of the proposed project as a modern example of stewardship of the ocean showing how technology is helping provide fish from the sea, now that the fishing stocks have been depleted (Ho`opai 2008, Von Holt 2008, Richards 2008). Some interviewees asked if the company could consider giving back to the communing even more by releasing some fish into the wild fox fishermen to catch. ~ Alternative 2 -Keahole Point Among the alternative sites evaluated, the one evaluated in greatest detail for this project is in Kona, located 2.6 nautical miles offshore Keahole Point, North Kona. In Kona, the culmral landscape is different and unique from the Kohala site in regards to the ocean area and the lands adjacent to the alternative site, including the area around Keahole Point, North Kona. ~ In the ocean at the alternative site in Kona, there axe also no resources within the ROI that are listed in the NRHP (NPS 2007). The proposed lease area is too deep for free-diving or any significant SCUBA diving activity. There are no significant benthic plant or animal O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-130 2.11 Cultural Resources ~ populations, and there are virtually no benthic or pelagic fishing activities in this depth range. Kona crabs and nabeta are the only benthic resources [hat occur on sand bottom at this depth, but informants suggest that the currents are too strong Eor any significant fishing Q effort this close to Keahole Point The only potentially impacted cultural resource in the proposed leased ocean areas that was cited during extensive discussions with community and kupuna groups in sirrular projects was the `opelu ko`a (`holes' or schooling places Eor mackerel scad - Decu~renu macarellur) that occur in the general region. The locations of these ko`a ue considered to be part of the traditional marine lore and are considered inappropriate for publication or for sharing outside of the families or communit}' groups who have traditionally fished these ko`a. `Opelu aggregations usually occur in waters around 120 feet (37 meters) deep, close to reef drop-offs and well shoreward of the farm area. An important aspect of the `opelu ko`a tradition is the maintenance of these ko`a by ~ feeding of the school. To keep fish attracted to a ko`a, a fisherman will regularly drop bags of palu -grated vegetable matter - to the school (daily or every other day). Kupuna from the Kekaha district stated that the `opelu ko`a along the north of Keahole Point are not currently `fed' or fished by either commercial or recreational/ardsanal fishermen. However, the knowledge of the names and locations of the ko`a are considered of historical signiEtcance and is a tradition that the kupuna would Gke to see preserved and passed on to future O generations (refer to transcript from I<upuna Meeting, on Black Pearls Inc.'s web site: www.blackpearlsinccom) (KB`a'F 2003} The ko`a are highly prized resources and can be considered as an ATI. Prior to the 1501 lava flow that inundated the area„Keahole was the site of the largest fish pond in the Hawaiian islands -one so large that a canoe was used to traverse Erom one side to the other (KBWF 2003). Fish farming could therefore be 0 considered historically and traditionally appropriate to the area. Impacts under Alternative 2 arc similar to impacts under the Proposed Action. Less Than Significant Impacts ~ TCAs/ATIs. As in the open ocean lease site for the Proposed Action, there is the possibility tha[ the open ocean lease area for Altemative 2 may overlap with traditional fishing areas used by fishermen. The Alternative 2 ocean lease site offshore Keahole Point ma}' result in some conflict with trolling at tltis depth contour. The presence of the OOA platforms would likely reduce access to areas that fishermen would otherwise had open access to in the 0 past. Nonetheless, because of the large expanse of the ocean used fox fishing in this area, the impact is considered less than signi&cant. Therefore, it is concluded that under Alternative 2. there would be less than significant impacts to ATIs in the lease portion of the open ocean area in Kona No Impacts Histot/calBuildings andAtchaeologicalResources. There are no historical buildings or documented archaeological resources with in the ROI. Beneficial Impacts ~ Presences of the platforms may increase opportunities for increased catches and greater regularity of catches for traditional fishermen in the area. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-131 ~ 0 2.11 Cultural Resources Alternative 3 - No Acfion O ~~ ~0 ~d ~~ ~~ No Impacts Under the no action alternative, the current level of activities would not change and the overall effect would be no impacts. Because of the paucity of benthic and fish resources within this depth range on the bare sand bottom, fishermen practicing subsistence fishing may not choose to fish within the ROI. There would he no changes to the cultural resources currently available to the Native Hawaiians. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-132 2.12 Alternatives 2.12 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 2.12.7 Affected Environment O Introduction/Region of Influence There were three alternatives evaluated in this llFIS, the Alternative 1 (which was selected as the Proposed Action), Alternative 2 site, and Altematve 3 (which is the No Action Alternative). I/ach section above addresses the specific topic area for all three alternatives, ~ describes the potential impacts for each alternative and offers a chart comparing the potential impacts. This section summarizes the three different alternatives, compares and contrasts them, and explains why the Proposed Action site was selected, and the Alternative 2 site was rejected, and the Alternative 3 No Action Alternative was also rejected. Project Location for Proposed Action - Malae Point (Preferred Alternative) 0 As described above, the Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculmre Project will be operating from an ocean lease site based three miles (2.6 nautical miles (nm)) offshore Malae Point in North Kohala. The open ocean aquaculmre operations and ocean platform site will be off the North Kohala Coast approximately three miles (2.6 nautical miles) directly offshore (southwest) of Malae Point (Figure 1-1). The land-based support for every day O ocean operations will be in Kawaihae Commercial F-Iazbor (Figure 1-2). The harvested fish will be transported from the proposed ocean lease site by boat directly to Kawaihae Commercial Harbor for trans-shipment by truck to Kona Fish Company, or other fish processing operation in Kona, and on to Kona International Airport. Alternativel}', the ~ company may utilize HIlo Harbor and the existing fish packing facility in Hilo for processing the ahi should the Kona vendor not be available. Feed storage and feed transport to the feed boat will take place from Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. At the Proposed Action site, the platforms will be 2.6 nm offshore and will be outside the ~ Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HII-IIk~NMS), shown in purple in Figure 1-1. The area proposed for leasing is 247 acres (1.0 square kilometers) and will contain 12 platforms, which will produce 6,000 tons of Ahi per year. The platforms will be evenly distributed in the lease site, as shown in Figure 1-3. The water Q depth at the site is 1,320 feet (402.34 meters); the top of the platforms will be held at a depth of 65 Eeet (20 meters) below the water surface. Project Location for the Alternative Site 2 - Keaho/e Point The project location fox the proposed open ocean platform site is the only difference O between Alternative Site 2. The open ocean aquaculmre operations and ocean platform site will be off the North Kona Coast approximately three miles (2.6 nautical miles) due west of Keahole Point (Figure 1-10). As with the Proposed Action, the land-based support for every day ocean operations, feed storage and feed transport to feed boats will take place at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor (Figure 1-2). O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-133 ~ 0 2.12 Alternatives At the Alternative 2 site, the platforms will be 2.6 nautical miles offshore and will be outside the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIH\X/NMS), shown in ~ purple in Figure 1-10. The size of area proposed for leasing is the same as the Proposed Action site at 242 acres (1.0 square kilometers) and will contain 12 platforms, which will produce 12,000 tons of Ahi per }'ear. Just as in the Proposed Action site, the platforms will be evenly distributed in the center of the ~ Alternative 2 site off Keahole Point, as shown in Figure 1-11. Map of lease area centered at 19°43' 40.00" N 156°06' 29.00" W, with spacing of platforms within the ocean lease site to maximize mixing. The water depth at the site is 5,800 feet (1,768 meter); platforms will be held at a central depth of 154 feet (47 meters) below the water surface and the top will be 65 feet (20 meters) below the ocean surface. Alternative 3: No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, Hawaii Oceanic Technology would not proceed with the development of the Ahi Aquaculmxe Project O Operations Operations fox the Hawaii Oceamc Technology Ahi Aquaculmre Project axe identical between the Proposed Action and the Alternative 2 site, except the distance from Kawaihae Commercial Harbor to the Alternative 2 site is much Eurthcx and would require more fuel and time for the working vessels to reach the ocean lease site. ~ Open Ocean Platforms The description of the open ocean platforms and distribution within the leased area is the same fox the Proposed Action and for Alternative 2. Feeding ~ Feeding methods and frequency are the same for the Proposed Action and fox Alternative 2. Platform Maintenance and Tuna Health Inspections The platform maintenance and tuna health inspections axe the same for the Proposed Action and fox illtexnative 2. Harvesting The harvesting information is the same for the Proposed Action and for Alternative 2. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2-134 2.12 Alternatives 2.72.2 Comparison of Alternatives 1'he following chart summarize the compariso^ of alternatives relative to then potential impacts. Details about these conclusions are found above in the individual sections. i impen rssues proposed Action Alternative 2 Cumulative No Action Alternative Geology, Sediments, Soils and Topography O O O O Land Use and Aesthetics O O O O Oceari'Use O O O O WaterlQuality O O O O Biological Resources ~ O O O O Waste bfanagement Traffic O O O O .~ ,~.,a..,y U O O O Socioeconomics Q } O } O,~- O Emergency Services Q Q Cultural Resources O O O O In cases when there would be both beneficial and adverse impacts, both axe shown on this table. None of the significant impacts in the cumulative impacts column ace attributable to the Ahi Aquaculture Project ox no action. LEGEND Table 2.12-1 ' Summary of Potential Impacts of Implementing the Ahi Aquaculture Project Proposed Action, I Alternative 2, and the No Action Alternative 0 = Significant impact + = Beneficial impact = Signiificant but mitigable to less than significant impact = Less than significant impact N/A = No[ applicable O = No impact There are more similarities than differences between the Proposed Action site and the Alternative 2 site. The size of the proposed ocean lease area is the same and the operations are the same, including the size and number of platforms, feeding, platform maintenance, tuna health inspections, and harvesting. Both ocean lease locations will utilize the same land base for operations at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. The main differences in the environmental setting between the Proposed Action site and the Alternative 2 site are the greater depth oEwater at the Alternative 2 site; the greater distance from Kawaihae Commercial Harbor to the Alternative 2 site; the higher number of vessels utilizing the ocean region around Alternative 2, and the higher number of spinner dolphin resting areas located on the adjacent coastal waters. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2-135 e O O O O 0 2.12 Alternatives The Proposed Action site was selected over the Alternative 2 site primarily because of the greater distance the work vessels would need to travel to get to the Alternative 2 site fxotn ~ Kawaihae I-Iubor, the greater fuel costs that would be incurred, and the greater wear and tear on the vessel Erom the longer trip. In addition, there appeared to be a greater potential fox some conflicts of use with trollexs in the Alternative 2 site because of the higher number of vessels using the area. ~~/ltile there arc a greater number of spinner dolphin resting areas identified in the coastal waters adjacent to the Alternative 2 site, this was no[ considered a Q decisive factor since the open ocean aquaculmre site is located 2.6 mn away Ecom shore, in waters not frequented by spinner dolphins. 0 The No Action Alternative was not selected since it would not enable the company to achieve its goal of sustainable aquaculture production in Hawaii. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project-Draff Environmental Impact Statement 2- 0 RELATIONSHIP TO STATE STATUTES, PLANS AND POLICIES 3.1.1 Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes Compliance with environmental requirements mandated in Chapter 343, HRS, is discussed above in Section 1.5 HAPTER 3 ONFORMANCE WITH PUBLIC PLANS AND ~ POLICIES 3.' 0 E 0 C 3.1.2 State Land Use Law, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes The Stare Land Use Law (Chaprer 205, HRS) establishes the State Land Use Commission, and gives them the authority to designate all lands in the State as either Urban, Rural, Agricultural or Consen~ation. State Land Use classification For the Proposed Action ocean lease site is Conservation, in a Resource subzone. "Phis Proposed Action is an identified land use in the Resource Subzone of the Conservation District, pursuant to Section 13-5-4, ~ I-Iawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), R-1, Aquaculmre, D-1: "aquaculture under an approved management plan." Since this Proposed Action is in the Conservation District, the approving agency is the DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, and the project will require a Conservation District Use Permit. 3.1.3 Hawaii State Plan C The Hawaii State Plan establishes a set of goals, objectives and policies that serve as long-range guidelines fox the growth and development of the State. The Plan is intended to achieve the following goals: • A strong, viable economy, characterized by stability, diversity and growth that enable fulfillment of the needs and expectations of Hawaii's- present and fueure generations. C • A desired physical environment, characterized by beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable natural systems, and utuqueness, that enhances the mental and ph}sical well-being of the people. • Physical, social and economic well-being, fox individuals and families in Hawaii that C nourishes a sense of community responsibility, of caring and participation in community life. (I-IRS 226-4) Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 0 3. Conformance with Public Plans and Policies Prioxiry objectives and policies relating to the economy (in general, related to agriculmxe, and O related to potential growth activities), and the physical environment (related to land-based, shoreline and marine resources). State economic objectives and policies related to the general economy include: • Increased and diversified employment opportunities to achieve full employment, 0 increased income and job choice, and improved living standards for Iawaii's people. • A steadily growing and diversified economic base that is not overly dependent on a few industries, and includes the development and expansion of industries on the neighbor islands. State economy objectives relating to agriculture include: O • Continued viability in Hawazi $ sugar and pineapple dndustries. • Conknuedgrowtb and development ofdiverrified agriculture throughout the State. • An agriculture indusdy that canlinues do constitute a dynamic and essentiad Component of Hawau s strategic, economic, and soaal well-being (Hawaii State Plan 1991: 4J. Specific policies associated with agriculture that are relevant to the proposed action include: • Support research and development activities that provide greater efftaency and economic productivity in agriculture. • Expand Hawau'.r agricultural base by promotinggrowth and development of flowers, tropical fruits and plants, livestock, feed grains, forestry, food crops, aquaculture, and other potential enterpn.res. • Promote economimlly competitive activLkes that increase Hawaii i agricultural se)`suff~ciency. (Hawaii State Plan 1991: 4) State economic objectives relating to potential growth activities include: O • Planning fox the State's economy with regard to potential growth activities shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of development and expansion of potential growth activities that sense to increase and diversity Hawaii's economic base. ~ Specific policies associated with potential economic growth activities that axe relevant to the proposed action include: • Facilitate investment and employment in economic activities that have the potential fox growth such as diversified agriculture, aquaculture, apparel and textile manufacturing, film and television production, and energy and marine-related industries. • Provide public incentives and encourage private initiative to attract new industries that best support Hawaii's social, economic, physical, and environmental objectives. • Increase research and the development of ocean-related economic activities such as mining, food production, and scientific research. ~ State policies relating to the physical environment with regard to land-based, shoreline and marine resources include: ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 3. Conformance with Public Plans and Policies • Prudent use of Hawaii iland-bared, shoreline and marine resources. • Effective protection of Hawaii s unique and fragile er7vironmental re,raurces. (F-Iawaii State Plan 7991: 7). ~ Specific policies associated with the physical environment of land-based, shoreline and marine resoarces that are relevant to the proposed action include: • Ensure compatibility Getween land-based and water-based activities and natural resources and ecological ystems. • Take into account the p/rysical attriGutes of areas when planning and designing activities and faczlitier. • Manage natural resources and environs to encourage their beneficial and multiple u,re wilhaut generating costly or irreparable environmental damage (Hawaii State Plan 1991: 7). There axe a variety of priority guidelines identified in the Hawaii State Plan to stimulate economic growth and encourage business expansion and development to provide needed jobs for Hawaii's people and achieve a stable and diversified economy. These include the following three which are relevant to the Proposed Action: ~i (2) Encourage the expansion of technological research to assist industry development and Q support the development and cbmmerciali~ation of technological advancements.... (8) Provide puUlic incentives and encourage private initiative to develop and attract industries which promise long-term growth potentials and which have the fallowing cbaracteristitr: (Af An Industry that ran take advantage of Hawai's unique location and Q available plysical and human resources. (B) A clean indua~try that would have minimal adverse effects on 7-Iawaii'.r environment. (C) An industry that is willing to hire and train Hawaii's people to meet the ~ industry's labor needs at all levels of employment. (D) An indua~try that would provide reasonable income and steady employment.... (70) Enhance the quality of Hawaii's labor . jorer and develop and maintain career opportunities for Hawaii e~ people through the following ackanr~ ~ (A) Expand vocational training in divers~ed agriculture, aquaculture, irrformakan industry, and other areas where growth is desired and feasible. (Hawaii State Plan 1997: 17) The Proposed Action is consistent with these State Plan priority #2 because the construction and 0 deployment of the Oceansphexes represents industry development and commercialization of technological advancements in ocean engineering and open ocean aquaculture. It would be a positive step far this prioritt~. The Proposed Action is also consistent with the State Plan prioritt~ #8 to encourage private initiative to develop industries which promise long-term growth potentials. A high qualih~ ahi 0 product offers long-term growth potential in a world export market. r+awau vicean~c ~ ethnology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Drat Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 ~ O 3. Conformance with Public Plans and Policies The Proposed Action is consistent with State Plan Priority 8(A) because open ocean aquaculmre takes advantage of Hawaii's unique location with access to deep clean waters close to shore in the Q middle of the Pacific The project also takes advantage of the local human resources with experience working at sea in commercial vessels, using SCUBA, and other technical skills. The Proposed Action consistent with State Plan Priority 8(B) because it is an open ocean aquacultuxe operation, which is part of a clean industry with minimal adverse impacts on environment-, Q The Proposed Action is consistent with State Plan Policy 8C as they have aheady shown their commitment to hire and train Hawaii's people to meet their needs fox technical employees. As described above, they are supporting two UH Hilo students to get trained in ahi spawning and cultivation techniques. '', O The Proposed Action is also consistent with the State Plan Priority #10 because it will enhance the quality of Hawaii's labor force and develop and maintain career oppormmties by participating in vocational training in aquacultuxe. The Proposed Action is consistent with the State Plan Priority #8(D) because the company projects to be able to provide reasonable income and steady employment for its work force. Q 3.1.4 Hawaii State Functional °lans The State Functional Plans implement the Hawaii State Plan in specific areas of major statewide concern with a definition of strategies for departmental policies, programs and priorities. This section will address two functional plans, one for agriculture, the other for 0 conservation lands. The Hawaii State Plan ilgriculmre State Functional Plan (1991) identifies problems, assesses issues, and summarizes the implications for Functional Plan strategy in the numerous areas. Aquaculmre is considered an agricultural commodity industry. The Agriculture Functional Plan advocates to "...increase the production and growth of Hawaii's agricultural commodity Q industries through cultural and management practices" (Hawaii Agriculture State Functional Plan 1991: II-2). Two top priorities of the Hawaii Agriculture State Functional Plan are: • There as a need to anerza,re the productive agricultural use of lands most suitable and needed for Q agriculture. • There is continuous need for the e~ecient and equitable provision of an adequate supply of mater far agricultural use ~Flawaii Agriculture State Functional Plan 7991: I7-3J. In Hawaii legal terms, the word "land" also includes submerged lands and ocean waters. So, Q it can be argued that the State Functional Plan is advocating for an increase in the productive use of ocean areas most suitable and needed fox aquaculmre. The Proposed Action is consistent with the Hawaii Agriculture State Functional Plan since it would significantly increase production and growth in the open ocean aquaculture industry Q in Hawaii. There are curxendy two permitted open ocean aquaculture operations in the State of Hawaii. Hawau Oceatuc Technology is seeking to be the first untethered open ocean aquaculmre system for deep water environments. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Drat Environmental Impact Statement 3-4 3. Conformance with Public Plans and Policies ~ Aquaculmre is a top priority agricultural activity as shown through the work of the Aquaculture Development Program of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Through this program, ADP provides assistance in planning and coordination, information dissemination, Q business counseling, marketing, animal health management, and research and extension funding. "lhe Proposed Action is consistent with the goals of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture fox the development of open ocean aquaculmre industry in Hawaii. Hawaii Oceanic Technology has benefitted from the technical services provided by the Aquaculture Development Program. Of the objectives in the Conservation Lands Functional Plan, several are relevant to the Proposed Action, including: Protection of fragile or rare natural resources. Enhancement of natural xesouxces. t/ Appropriate development of natural resources. The Proposed Action is designed to minimize any potential negative impact on fragile or rare natural resources such as marine mammals. The lack of anchors, lines and loose nets, and its location 2.6 nm from shore are all effective mitigation and serve as protective measures. C The Proposed Action is consistent with the objective of enhancing natural xesouxces. By allowing for the Proposed Action, more ahi will be provided to the market without any increased pressure on wild stocks of ahi other than the minor impact of the capture of 7 ahi individuals each year to refresh the broodstock. The Proposed Action is consistent with the objective for appropriate development of natural resources. Aquacultuxe is a consistent use of the Resource Subzone of this Conservation Land. 3.2 RELATIONSHIP TO COUNTY STATUTES, PLANS AND POLICIES 3.2.1 Hawaii County General Plan The Hawaii County Council approved the most recent version of the County General Plan in February 2005, and amended it in 2006. The proposed ocean lease site is not in the Land Use Planning Allocation Guide map, nor under County jurisdiction. However, the Kawaihae Commercial Harbor, where the land base of the operations will take place, is within the State Commercial Harbor and identified in the LUPAG map as "Urban Expansion, Low, Medium and High Density Industrial.." 3.2.2 North Kohala Community Development Plan As part of the General Plan, "community development plans" are to be developed for each judicial district The North Kohala Community Development Plan (CDP) was approved by the Hawaii County Council. The North Kohala CDP does not specifically include the ocean area, since the ocean is not under County General Plan jurisdiction. However, the CDP does include some references that could relate to the proposed project, especially related to protecting viewplanes of the ocean from land, protecting the coastal lands adjacent to the proposed ocean lease site, and promoting agriculture. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project- Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 0 3. Conformance with Public Plans and Policies According to the North Kohala CDP, 1'he over-arching Goal far achieving the derrred Growth Managementin Kohala it summantied as: GOAL.r Direct North Kohala i growth to areas within and near existing town centers in order to preserve the dirtrzct'r open space and cultural ree~aurces: and to promote avnculture. There axe nine strategies to implement the overarching Goal. Of these, two relate to the proposed action: Strateg~l.4: Promote and Support a Community of Diversifted Agricatlture Stratee 7.9.• Establish a View Plane Protection Program to identifv and protect areas o~innifcant beauty along the Kohala Mountain Road and Akoni-Pule High rorrldor. (North Kohala CDP: 27 Q Under Strategy 1.4, related to agriculture, the relevant goal is that "...the Kohala community will produce 50% of the food it consumes." (North Kohala CDP, 2008: 134). The Proposed Action is consistent with this strategy by increasing the amount of alv that is produced locally that is consumed locally. Though the main markets for the cultured ahi 0 tuna are the US west coast and Japan, there will be some ahi sold on the local market So, the Proposed Action is consistent with the strategy by increasing local production of locally- consumed ahi. Under Strategy 1.9 related to view plane protection, the CDP says the North Kohala CDP Action Committee will • identify view planes of significant beauty along the Kabala Mountain Aoad and Akoni-Pule Highway; and • identify potential programs and regulakans to protect the view planes from developmenl and/ar encroachment (North Kohala CDR• 39). ~ The coastal area adjacent to the proposed ocean lease site is identified in the North Kohala Environmental and Cultural Concept Map as having "a high concentrations of cultural sites" on the maps of the North Kohala CDP (North Kohala CDP: 25). The company recognizes that the view plane from the Akoni-Pule Highway of the ocean area where the proposed ocean lease is located would be considered a view plane of s'igniEcant beauty. Q Relating to public access, the lands at Ki`iokalani, Puaiki and Puanui were identified as mauka-makki access roads to the coastal trail. This was part of the long-range access plan of a coastline trail from Polulu [o Kawaihae, and drivable mauka-makki access roads. In the recommendations for the mauka-makki access roads was the following: O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-6 3. Conformance with Public Plans and Policies Puanui, Puai,~f and Ki`zokalani ahupua`a - vehicular access an an exi,rtzng jeep road over State land and Ponohola Inch, Ltd. Land TMK 5-9-03 to Maly e Point. Adro over Kamehameha Schools land TMK 5-8-09:8 to IYlawazonu Bay." (1Vortb Kobala CDP: 53). This recommendation as a site for mauka-makai access also re Elects the public value of the view planes from the coastal land adjacent to the proposed ocean lease site. The Proposed Action is consistent with view plane protection in this area because the additional work vessels and visible tops of the Oceansphere for 4 hours/day are not anticipated to cause a noticeable impact on the viewplane from shore. It was noted by those interviewees using the coastal lands adjacent to the proposed ocean lease site that the distance from shore resulted in the proposed project having no impact on the viewshed from the coastal trails and camps. They said there arc akcady boats that regularly traverse the ocean closer to shore, so a few more boats won't make a difference. The addition of the proposed project's work boats and the tops of Oceanspheres, will have no impact on the cultural resources, practices and beliefs of the coastal lands (Richards 2008, Von Holt 2008, I-Io`opai 2008, Hanohano 2008, Akau 2008). \X~ith this conclusion in mind, the Proposed Action is consistent with the view plane protection strategy of the North Kohala CDP. 3.2.3 Hawaii County Zoning The proposed ocean lease site is not under County jurisdiction, therefore has no County zoning. According to the Hawaii County Planning Department, County zoning for the Kawaihae Commercial Harbor is MG-1 a, which is "General Industrial - 1 acre." The development of the land base of operations in die Kawaihae Commercial Harbor is industrial in nature and is consistent with the MG-la County Zoning for the commercial harbor lands. 3.2.4 Hawaii County Special Management Area The proposed ocean lease site is not under County jurisdiction, and is not in the Special Management Area (SMA). The Kawaihae Commercial Harbor complex is set aside to the Hawaii Department of Transportation Harbors Division and the land base of operations is consistent with the existing approved activities in the commercial harbor. No construction is envisioned at the Kawaihae Commercial I-Iarbor lease site that would trigger an SMA permit. 3.3 PERMITS REQUIRED A decision on whether to proceed with the proposed action rests on numerous factors, such as schedule, availability of funding, and environmental considerations. In addressing environmental considerations, Hawaii Oceanic Technology is guided by several relevant statutes (and then implementing regulations) and Executive Orders that establish standards and provide guidance on environmental and natural resources management and planning. These include, but are not limited to, HRS 343, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Noise Control Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Kesources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), Executive Oxdex 12088 (Federal Compliance wi[h Pollution Control Standards), Executive Order C ~: e Q Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 3-7 ~ 3. Conformance with Public Plans and Policies 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations), and Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks O and Safet}' Risks). Key provisions of these stamtcs and Executive Orders are described in more detail the EIS, iE necessary to better understand their application. The permits required for this project include: 1. US Army Corps of Engineers: Department of Army Permit under Section 10 of dte ~ Rivers and Harbors Act 2. US Coast Guard: Special Use Permit 3. DLNR/OCCL: State Conservation District Use Permit 4. DOI-I: National Pollution Discharge Elimination S}'stem Permit & Zone of Mixing Permit 5. DLNR/DOA: Aquaculmre License O O O O O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 C C C HAPTER 4 ER REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES E 4.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 included an analysis of cumulative impacts, geology, land use and aesthetics, water quality, biology, waste management, traffic and transportation, air quality, socioeconomic ~ condifions, emergency services, cultural impacts and analysis of the alternatives. In addition to the analyses of cumulative impacts presented in Chapter 2, HRS 343 requires additional evaluation of the project's impacts with regard to the following: • Probable adverse impacts which could not be avoided; • Summary of unresolved issues; • The relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity; and • Any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. HRS 343 also requires that an F_A discuss the agencies and members of the public who have been consulted during preparation of the document. 4.2 PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH COULD NOT BE AVOIDED There are no probable adverse impacts which are expected to occur with the Proposed Action. Any potential adverse impacts have been mitigated by the design of the aquaculture platforms without any mooring lines; and by locating the Proposed Action away from the ^earshore waters where most fishers and boaters and other cultural actibities are located, C away from where spinner dolphins rest during the day, and away from the area within 100 fathom depth that is most frequented by humpback whales. While there is a recognition tha[ the aquaculmre platforms may attract fish to aggregate around them, this is viewed by some fishermen as a potential benefit, and diewed by some as a potential adverse impact. The potential impact will be mitigated by allowing the fishers to fish close to the aquaculture platforms, and thereb}' benefit directly from any fish aggregation that occurs at the Proposed Action site. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 0 4. Other Required Environmental 4.3 SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES d There axe no unresolved issues that have not been addressed in this DEIS through project design, operational protocols, best management practices and mitigation. There axe pending permits that are not completed at this time. 4.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ~ Short-term damage to the environment relating to the Proposed Action and Altematve 2 would be limited. No significant impacts were identif?ed that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The long-term productivity of the environment will not be lessened by the Proposed Action 0 as shown in the analysis in Section 2.4 on eater Quality and 2.5 on Biological Resources. Ongoing environmental monitoring will be done to ensure protection of the em*ixonment. Long term productivity of the open ocean aquaculmre industry would be enhanced by the Proposed Action, which would help meet the high market demands of fish by providing a sustainable source of high quality, pure, clean tuna duough open ocean aquaculture. The O Proposed Action is designed to meet these production goals and enhance the quality of life and welfare of its staff and the quality of the natural environment. 4.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES HRS 343 reyuixes an analysis of the extent to wMch the proposed project's primary and O secondary effects would commit nonrenewable resources to uses that would be irretrievable to future generations. Implementing the Proposed Action or Alternative 2 would require committing both renewable and nonrenewable energy and material resources for open ocean aquaculmre operations, such as the fuel used by vehicles and work boats; the increases in water, power, and other resources necessary to maintain and operate facilities for the new O personnel; and the increase in local resources required to support the additional personnel and their families. However, there will be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of natural resources to this project since Chapter 190D HRS, as amended, specifically requires any lessee vacating O an ocean lease to remove all equipment and to restore the site to i[s original condition. It has been the case with the two ocean leases granted to open ocean aquaculmre operations in the state, the lessees are required to purchase comprehensive insurance for recovery and removal of any lost or damaged farm materials, and for any other damage that might be inflicted by the farm. ~ 4.6 AGENCY CONSULTATION Two scoping meeting were held widt key government agencies, including Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Land Division and Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT), Office of Planning, Coastal "Lone Management (CZM) Program; US Army Corps of Engineers ~ (USAGE); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Pacific Island Regional Office (PIRO), and the Hawaii State Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture Development Program on September 5, ?006. The purpose of the meetings were to present ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 4. Other Required Environmental Analyses C the Hawaii Oceanic Technology's proposed project to relevant federal and state regulatory agencies and to receive input and comments on preparing permit applications, environmental documents, and community outreach plans. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology conducted additional meetings with 'DLNR, Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), and Hawaii Department of Agriculture in Febmary 2007 regarding requirements Eor Conservation District Use Applications (CDUAs) and National Pollution Discharge Elitnination System (NPDES) permits and ocean leases. After substantial research and analysis of alternatives, the Company convened a second agency scoping meeting on July 16, 2008, to update the participants and seek comment on the preferred alternative fox the proposed action, and the environmental analysis. Participating agencies included Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Land Division and Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Business, F_conomic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT), Office of Planning, Coastal "Gone Management E (CZM) Program; Department of Health, Clean \X/atex Branch; Hawaii State Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture Development Program; US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) Pacific Island Regional Office (PIRO), and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Figure 41 below lists details about these agency consultations C Hawaii Oceanic Technology is currently in the process of obtaining a Conservation District Use Permit and has filed the necessary applications. 4.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Consultations with individual members of the public have taken place including the ~ landowners of the adjacent coastal lands in Kohala, and the kupuna invol}red in fisheries in the area. These include Monty Richards (Kahua Ranch), Pono von Holt (Ponoholo Ranch), the Hobpai ohana (Kahua and Ponoholo Ranch), Ka"ike o Ka~aina (lessee of adjacent ahupua a parcel), "Lala" La"au (~opelu fishermen), Robert Cambra ('opelu fishermen), and Kwanji Fukuyama (troller, and bottom fish fisherman). In addition, the project team met with community organizations including the West Hawaii Fishery Council, the Kawaihae ~ Local Resource Council, the Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. "These organizations included many stakeholders and community members from the area. Figure 4-1 below lists details about the community outreach and stakeholder consultation. C C Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 ~ 4. Other Required Environmental Figure 4-1: AGENCY AND PUBLIC OUTREACH ~ ~ ~ GOVERNMENT AGENCIES NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 9/5/2006 Informational Meeting* Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale National Sanctuary 9/5/2006 Informational Meeting US Coast Guard 9/5 & 9/28/2006 Informational Meeting I US Army Corp of Engineers 9/5 & 11/13/2006 Informational Meeting ' Q Center of Excellence in Research in Ocean Sciences 11/13/2006 Met with Federal Officials at conference HTDV 3/1/2007 Conference House of Representatives 9/5/2006 Office Visit DLNR, Aquatic Resources 9/5/2008 Informational Meeting DLNR, Land Division 9/5/2006 Informational Meeting ~ Coastal Zone Management 9/5/2006 Informational Meeting Senator Bobby Bunda 9/5/2006 Office Visit Senator Paul, Whalen Hawaii district 1/31/2007 Office Visit DOT Harbors Division, Hawaii District Manager 5/10/2007 Office Visit NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 07/16/08 2"d Informational Meeting* ~ Office of Planning, Hawaii State 07/16/08 2nd Informational Meeting US Army Corp of Engineers 07/16/08 2"d Informanonal Meeting Department of Health, Hawaii State 07/16/08 2"d Informational Meeting DLNR, Aquatic Resources 07/16/08 2°d Informational Meeting DLNR, Land Division 07/16/08 2"d Informational Meeting Coastal Zone Management 07/16/08 2"d Informational Meeting PUBLIC OUTREACH ThinkTech Radio Show (56 min.) 2/28/2006 KIPO Hawaii Public Radio Oceanic Institute 9/28/2006 Office Visit United Fishing Agency 11/6/2006 Office Visit ~ Cates International 11/14/2006 Office Visit UHM Department ofOceanography/HURL/JIMAR 11/14/2006 Office Visits Deep Blue Research, LLC 11/20/2006 Office Visit PACRC University of Hawaii Hilo 11/20/2006 Site Visit Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 4/23/2007 Public Presentation Ur Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce 6/6/2007 Public Presentation Kawaihae Local Resource Council 8/3/2008 Public Presentation UHM Dept. Of Marine Engineering 10/8/2008 Public Presentation William Akau 6/18/2008 Individual meeting Pono and Angie Von Hol[ 6/17/2008 Individual meeting Kimo, Leina'ala and Bernard Ho~opai 6/28/2008 Individual meeting Monty Richards 6/30/2008 Individual meeting Eddie "Lala" La'au 7/3/2008 Individual meeting Robert Cambra 8/19/2008 Individual meeting O Kwanji Fukuyama 8/19/2008 Individual meeting * Summaries of the two Informational Meeting are available by writing to Aqu aculture Development Program, 1177 Alakea Street #1400, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, info@haw aiiaquaculture.org 0 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 4 C C C RAFTER 5 ;EFERENCES ~ Abbott, Isabella Aiona. 1992. La`au Hawaii Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants. Bishop Museum Press. C FIonolulq Hawaii. Akau, William Ah You and Annie Kahikilani "Lani" Akau, South Kohala Fisheries -Oral History Interview at Kawaihae July 6, 1998 -with Kepa Maly (with notes from April 10, 1999), p. 101 in Ka Hana Lawai`a A Me Na Ko~a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fishexies of the C Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Al:au, William Ah You, Interview about Pu`u Ulaula, (Red Hill) and Malae Point (Black Point) area of North Kohala on June 18, 2008 with David Tamas in Cultural Impact Assessment for Offshore Ahi Aquaculture Project in North Kohala, prepared by MCS International fox Hawaii Oceanic Technology, July 2008. Alto, Valentine K, Margie Kaholo-Kailianu, David Keakealani, Caroline Keakealani-Pereira, Arthur (Aka) Mahi, Joseph Pu`ipui Maka`ai, Rose Pilipi-Maeda, and family members with Kepa Mal}', December 7, 1996, p. 43 in Ka Hana Lawai`a A Me Na Ko`a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A Histor}' of Fishing Practices and Marine Fishexies of the Hawauan Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Ako, Valentine K, Recollections of Fisheries -Native Practices and Commercial Enterprises (The District of North Kona, Island of Hawaii and the Island of Kauai) February 14th and June 21st, 2003 -with Kepa Maly, p. 420 in Ka Hana Lawai`a A Me Na Ko`a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the I-Iawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservanc}S 2003. Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail - U.S. National Park Service, Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 2007 Alice S. Davis and David A. Claque Changes in the hpdrothermal system at Loihi Seamount after the formation of Pele's pit in 1996. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Moss Landing, CA. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Environmental Impact Statement O 5. References Allen, Jane, Mary Riford, Theda M. Bennett, and Gail M. Muxakami. 1987. Part I in Five Upland `Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Kaneohe Interchange, Interstate I-Iighway H-3, ~ Island of Oahu. Bishop Museum Departmental Report Series 87-1. Bishop Museum Anthropology Department, Honolulu, Hawaii. Allen, Jane. 1991. "The Role of Agriculture in the Evolution of the Pxe-Contact Hawaiian State." Asian Perspectives 30:117-132._ 1992. "Farming in Hawaii from Colonization to Contact: Radiocarbon O Chronology and Implications for Cultural Change." New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:45-66. Altonn 2003. Honolululu Advertiser online. "USGS efforts to update undersea topography." Andrews, K., W.W.K. Au, L. Karczmarski. 2004. Population Assessment of the Hawaiian Spinner Dolphin O (Stenella Longirostris) Through Genetic Analysis. In: Program for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Third Scientific Symposium, November 2-4, 2004. Bahax, Richard. 2006. Manager at the I-Iawai`i Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism. Letter to Mr. Michael T. Pfeffer. October 6, 2006. O Baker, ]. D. and T. C. ]ohanos. 2003. Abundance of Hawaiian monk seals in the main Hawaiian Islands. Biological Conservation 116:103-110. IO 10 ~0 10 10 ~~ Balazs, G. FI. 1994. Homeward bound: satellite tracking of Hawaiian green turtles from nesting beaches to foraging pastures. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Consere-ation. US Dep[. of Commerce, NOAr1 Tech. Memo. NOAH=I'M-NMFS-SEFSC-341, p. 205-208. Barlow, J. 2003. Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian waters during summer/fall 2002. Admin. Rep. LJ-03-13. Balazs, G. H. and M. Chaloupka. 2004. Thirij~-year recovery trend in the once depleted Hawaiian green sea turtle stock. Biological Conservation, vol. 117: 491-498. Balazs, G. H., L. K. Katahita, and D. M. Ellis. 1998. Satellite tracking of hawksbill turtles nesting in the Hawaiian Islands. In Proceedings of the 18a' International sea Turtle Symposium, Mazatlan, Mexico. Bellona Foundation. 2003. The Environmental Status of Norwegian Ayuaculmre. Report No. 7, Bellona Bender, M., R. Jahnke, R. ~Y/eiss, W. Martin, D.T. Reggie, J. Orchardo and T. Sowers. 1989. Organic carbon oxidation and benthic nitrogen and silica dynamics in San Clemente Basin, a continental borderland site. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 52:685-697. Bergin, Dr. Billy, Loyal to the Land: The Legendary Parker Ranch 750- 1950, University of I-Iawai Press 2004 Bidigare, R. R., C. Benitez-Nelson, C. L. Leonard, P. D. Quay, M. L. Parsons, D. G. Foley, and M. P. Seki. 2003. Influence of a cyclonic eddy on the tnicrohetexouoph biomass and carbon export in the lee of Hawaii. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30 (6): 1318-1321. Birding I-Iawai`i. 2004. From Internet Web site: http://wwwbirdinghawaii.co.uk/. Accessed March 14, 2007. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 5. References Bonk, Bill, An archeological survey of a coastal tract in North and South Kohala Hawaii, Hawaii Department oELand and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, 1968. Brooks, K.M. and C.V.W. Mahnken. 2003, Interactions of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest environment II. Organic wastes. Fisheries Research 62:255 293. Cahill, Emmett, The Life and Tunes of John Young, Confidant and Advisor to Kamehameha the Great, Island Heritage Publishing, 1999. Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, J. M. Sualey, T. ]. Quinn II, L . M. Heiman, S. Cerchio, D. R. Salden, M. Yamaguchi, F. Sato, J. Urban, J. Jacobsen, O. von Ziegesar, K. C. Balcomb, C. M. Gabriele, M. E. Dahlheim, N. Higashi, S. Uchida, J. K. B. Ford, Y. Miyamura, P. L. de Guevara, S. A. Mizroch, L. Schlender, and K. Rasmussen. 1998. Abundance and Population Structure of Humpback Whales in ~ the N. Pacific Basin. Final Report to the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, P. O. Box 271, La Jolla, California, 92038. Calila, P., K J. Richards, , Y. Jiab and R. R. Bidigue, 2008, Eddy activity in the ]ee of the Hawaiian Islands, Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, vol. 55, 10-13, pp. 1179-1194 a Cambra, Robert, personal communication with David Tarnas on August 19, 2008, and December 23, 2008. Campbell, Archibald, A Voyage Around the World from 1806 until 7812. UH Press, Honolulu, 1967 in Newman, 1965. Carretta, J. V., T. Price, D. Petersen, and R. Read. 2005. Estimates of Marine Mammal, Sea 'Turtle, and Seabird Mortality in the California Drift Gillnet Fishery for Swordfish and Thresher Shark, 1996- 2002. Mar. Fish. Rev., vol. 66(2): 21-30. Celikkol, B. 1999. Biological Assessment of the University of New Hampshire open ocean aquaculture Q demonstration project finfish component. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Concord, MA. 60 pp. plus appendices. Chinen, Jon J., The Great Mahele UH Press, Honolulu, 1958. 0 Clague, D. 1998; Geology. In S.P. Juvik, and J.O. Juvik (eds). Atlas of Hawaii. 3~a edition. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, Hawaii. Pp. 37-46. Cobb, John N., Commercial fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. Report of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, 1902 in Newman, 1968. O Cole, J.J., S. Honjo, and ]. Erez.1987. Benthic decomposition of organic matter at a deep-water site in the Panama basin. Nature 327:703-704. County of Hawaii. 2004. County of Hawaii Data Book: Electric Power Output by Resource. From Internet O ~Veb site: http://www.hawaii-county.com/databook_2004/figurel.htm. Site accessed on March 29, 2007. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 Q ~ 5. References 2005. County of Hawaii General Plan Revision Maps, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide, Facihties, and Others. From Internet Web site: http://www.hawaii- d county.com/general_plan_xev/revision/maps.hun. Accessed on April 2, 2007. Coyne, M. S., T. A. Battista, M. Anderson, J. ~X/addell, W. Smith, P. Jokiel, M. S. Kendall, and M. E. Monaco. 2003. Benthic Habitats of the Main Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS CCMA 152. County of Hawaii 2007. Department of Health (DOH). 2005. 2005 Annual Summary Hawaii Aix Quality Data. State of Hawaii. Department of I-Iealth Clean Air Branch. Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 2006. Report to the Twenty Fourth Legislature, State Q of Hawaii, 2007 Regular Session, Implementation of Chapter 190D, Hawaii Revised Statues Ocean and Submerged Lands Leasing. Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR). 2003. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Sharks of Hawaii Poster. _. 2007a. Map showing number of shark incidents by island, 1900-2004. From 0 interne[ website: http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/sharks/stateincidents.html. Site accessed on March 28, 2007 _. 2007b. Hawaiian Shark Information: Most Recent Shark Incidents. From intemet website: http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/dar/sharks/incidents.html. Site accessed on March 28, 2007. Dorrance, William H., and Francis S. Morgan. 2000. Sugar Islands: The 165-Year History of Sugar in Hawaii. ~ Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hawaii. Ellis, William, Journal of William Ellis -Reprint of the London 1827 Edition, Advertiser Publishing Co., I-Ionolulu,1963, in Newman, 1968. Emerson, S., K. Fischer, C. Reimers, and D. Heggie. 1985. Organic carbon dynamics and preservation in ~ deep-sea sediments. Deep Sea Research 32:1-21. Enell, M. 1995. Environmental impact of nutrients from Nordic fish farming, Water Science and Technology 31:61-71. d Enos, Eric. 1998. Taro Culture, in Preserving Hawai`i's Traditional Landscapes, Conference Proceedings, September 15-17, 1995, William Chapman and Chris Kirk-Kuwaya, (eds.) Historic Preservation Program, Department of American Studies, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii. June 1998. Q Flament, Pierre. 1996. Ocean Atlas of Hawaii. Prom Internet Web site: wwwsatlab.hawaii.edu/alas. Accessed on March 14, 2007. O Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2007. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculmre 2006. Rome. 2007. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 4 5. References Fornander, Abraham. 1996 (1880). Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of I{amehameha I. With introduction by Glen Grant. Reprinted, paperback, Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hawaii. Originally published as An Account of the Polynesian Race, its Origin and Migrations, vol. II. ~ Trubner, London, England. Fukuyama, Kwanji, interview with David Tarnas in I-Tmvaii Oceanic Technology Proposed phi Aguaculture Farm Noah Kohala Ocean Lease Site Cultural Impact A.rd'e.r.rmeny prepared by MCS International for Hawaii Oceanic Technology, December 2008. Glencross, B. D., N. Rutherford and W. FIawkins. 2003. Determining waste excretion parameters from barramundi ayuaculmre, Fisheries Research Contract Report, No. 4, Dept. of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Division, WA Marine Research Laboratories PO Box 20 NORTH BEACH Western Australia 6920, Government of Western Australia. Gbsline, William A. and Vernon E. Brock, Handbook of Hawaiian Fishes, University of Hawaii Press: Honolulu, 1965, in Newman (1968). Grigg, R. \V. 2002. Precious corals in Hawaii: discovery of a new bed and revised management measures for C existing beds. Marine Fish. Rev., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 13-20. Ha`anio -Kong, Lily Namakaokai`a at Keauhou, Oxa] History Interviews and Site Visits with Kepa Maly March 7th, March 27th and May 1st, 1996, in in Ka Hana Lawai`a A Me Na Ko`a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Hampton et al. 2005. In Nature, vol. 434. Apri128, 2005. Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Elizabeth G. I-Iandy, with Mary K. Pukui. 1978. Native Planters in Old Hawaii. Their Life, Lore, and Em*ironment. 2^'t printing. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Hawaii Constitutional Convention Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, Standing Committee Reporl No. 57 (August 25, 1978) in Meller, 1985. 1-Iawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (DOBOR). 2007. General Boating Info for Hawaii. From intemet website: http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/dbor/bor_info.htm .Site accessed on March 28, 2007. Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT). 1998. Hawaii Commercial Harbors 2020 Master Plan. State of C Hawaii. Department of Transportation Harbor Division. Hawaii Oceanic Technology (HOT) Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice. (EISPN) (Hawaii Oceanic Technology, November 23, 2008) C Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5 O 5. References Hawaii Ocean Time-series program. 2006. University of Hawaii. Graphs, data, and information on-line. From Internet Web site: http://hahanasoesthawaii.edu/hot/hot.html. Accessed on February 21, O 2007. 10 ~Q Hawaii Office of Planning. 2007. CGIS Database: Seabed geology off the northwestern coast of the Island of I-Iawai`i. From internet website: http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/gis/bottom_type.htm. Downloaded March 28, 2007. HDBED"P (Hawai`i Department of Business Economic Development, and Tourism). 2005. The State of Hawaii Data Book 2005. From Internet Web site: http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/. Accessed on April 2, 2007 2007a. Quarterly Statistic and Economic Report. 1~~ Quutex 2007. From Internet Web site: http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/. Accessed on AprIl 2, 2007 20076. Rescaxch and Economic Analysis Division. Counij~ Population Facts. March 22, 2007. . 2007c. Annual Estimates of Housing Units for Counties in Hawaii: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005. 2007d. The State Input Output Study Updated. From Intemet Web site: http: / /u~vw.hawaii.gov/dbedt/main/news releases /2006/news-release- 0616/view?searchtexm=input%20output. Accessed on April 11, 2007. IC ~~ 10 10 10 10 HDOE (Hawai`i Department of Education). 2007. Schools Directory. From Intemet Web site: http: / / 16 5.248.6.166 /data/schoollist. asp?sortEield 1=island&sortfield2=gradesoxt&soxtfield3... 4/4/. Accessed on Apri14, 2007. HIHWNMS (Hawauan Islands Humpback Whale National Maxine Sanctuary). 2003. Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale page, HIHa'NMS. From Intemet Web Site: http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/about/humpback.html. Accessed on March 24, 2007. Ho`opai, Kitno, Leina`ala Ho`opai, and Bernard Ho`opai, Inten~iew about Ki`iokalani and the Pahinahina lease area on June 27, 2008 with David 1'amas in Cultural Impact Assessment for Offshore Ahi Aquaculmre Project in North Kohala, prepared by MCS International fox Hawaii Oceanic Technology, July 2008. Hurlburt, H. E., E. P. Chas'signet, et al., 2008: Eddy-resolving global ocean prediction. Ocean Modeling in an Eddying Regime, M. W. Hecht and H. Hasumi, American Geophysical Union, 353-381 I`i, John Papa. 1963. Fragments of Hawaiian History, as recorded by John Papa I`i. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Iverson, Robert, Tom Dye, Linda Paul, Native Hawaiian Fishing Rights, Phase 2, the Main Hawaiian Islands and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, \~~cstem Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, July 1990. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6 5. References Jahnke, R.A. 1996. The global ocean Elux of particulate organic carbon: Areal distribution and magnitude. Global Biogeochemica] Cycles 10:71-88. Jain, A. K. and E. G. Loukaides. 2006. Environmental aspects of the expansion of the Honokohau Harbor, Hawaii. From Internet Web site: http://web.mit edu/evrosl/Public/HawaiiPaper.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2007. C Jordan, David Staxx and Barton Warren Evermann, Preluninary Report on the Investigations of the Fishes ~ and Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, 57th Congress, 1st session, House of Representatives Document No. 249 in January 13, 1902. Juvik, S.P and J.O. Juvik. 1998. Adas of Hawaii. 3rd ed. Depanment of Geography, University of Hawaii press, Honolulu. e Kahananui, George Kinoulu, Sr. and Annie Kalani`ini Coelho, Fisheries of the Lands of Kohanaiki, Kaloko and `O`oma, North Kona, April 4, 2002, with Kepa Maly, p. 226 in Ka Hana Lawai`a A Me Na Ko`a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. ~ Kamakau, S. 1976. The ~~'orks of the People of Old: Na Hana a ka Po`e Kahiko. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publication 61. Bishop Musewn Press, Fonolulu. Kamakaq Samuel M. 1992. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Revised Edition. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Q KBWF (Kona Blue Water Farms). 2003. Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for An Offshore Open Ocean Fish Farm Project Off Unualoha Point, Kooa, Hawaii. Prepared fox: Land Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources. July 29, 2003. __ 2006. From Internet Web site: http://www.kona-kampachi.com. Accessed on March 26, 2007. KBWF, Kona Blue Water Paxms, Final Environmental Assessment for An Offshore Open Ocean Fish Farm Project off Unualoha Point, Kona, Hawaii, 2003. KBWF, Kona Blue Water Farms, Notes from a Meeting with Kekaha kupuna regarding the concept of the proposed open ocean fish farm, which were used to obtain input on traditional perspectives and cultural issues. (KBWF 2002). Q Kemper, C. M. and S. E. Gibbs. 2001. Dolphin interactions with tuna feedlots at Port Lincoln, South Q Australia and recommendations for minimizing entanglements. J. Cetacean Res. Mgmt., vol. 3(3): 283-292. Kerby, Terry. 2007. Personal communication with Paul Troy, Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc., May 7, 2007. Q Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7 ~ O 5. References Kikiloi, S. Kekuewa. 2006. Reconnecting with Ancestral Islands: Examining historical xelationslups between kanaka maoli and the Noxthwestem Hawaiians Islands. Report to NOr1r1 for the Kia`i Kai n (Guardians oEthc Sea) Project, Kamakakuokalani, Center fox Hawaiian Studies U.H. Manoa, January. Kinan, Irene. 2007. Personal communication between Kevin Kelly and Irene Kinan, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Sea Turtle Program Coordinator, March 15, 2007. Q IGrch, Patrick V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks. University of Flawai`i Press, Honolulu, I-Iawai`i. Q Kolb, Michael J. 1991. Social Power, Chiefly Authority, and Ceremonial Architecture, in an Island Polity, Maui, Hawaii. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department, University of California, Los Angeles. Kosaki, Richard H., Konohiki Fishing Rights, Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau, Report 1954, No. 1. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968. The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854: Foundation and Transformation. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Q' La`au, Eddie "Lala", Interview about the Pu`u Ulaula/Black Point area of North Kohala ocean area on July 3, 2008 with David Tarnas in Cultural Impact Assessment for Offshore Ahi Aquaculture Project in North Kohala, prepared by MCS International Eox Hawaii Oceanic Technology, July 2008. ~ La`aq Eddie "Lala", Interview pubhshed at http://www.pacifirnorlds.com/kawaihae/sea/fisMng.cfm Lumpkin, R. and P. Flament, 2001, Lagrangian statistics in the central North Pacific. J. Marine Systems 29, 141-155. Lumpkin, R., 1998, Eddies and currents of the Hawaiian Islands. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of I-Iawaii, Q Honolulu, HI, 300 pp. Lupatsch, I. and G. Kissil, 1998, Predicting aquaculmre wastes from gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) culture using nutritional approach. Aquatic Luring Resources 11(4):265-268. ~ Mackenzie, Melody, Native Hawaii Rights Handbook, Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation 1911 Malo, David. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities (h1o`olelo Hawai`i). Translated by N. B. Emerson. Second Edition. Bishop Museum Special Pubhcation 2. Honolulu, Hawaii. Q Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai `a _A Me Na Ko `a O Na Kni ~walu, A Histor}~ of Fz?bing Practicer and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Tslandr, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, He Mo olelo Aina: A Cultural Study of the Pu`u o `Umi Natural Area Reserve and Kohala -Hamakua Mountain Lancdr, District of Kohala and Hamakua, Ie~land of Hawaii., prepared for O Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Natural Area Reserve Program, 2004. Mal}S Kepa, translations of the He Moolelo no Makalei, for UH-Department of Urban and Regional Planning (UH-DURP). 2005. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 8 5. References O Maly, Kepa, translations of testimonies from Land Court proceedings regarding ahupua`a fox North Kohala, fox UH-Department of Urban and Regional Planning (UFI-DURP). undated. d Manu, Moke et al, Hawaiian Fishing "Tradition, Kalamaku Press, Honolulu, 1992 Martin, J.H., G.A. Knauer, D.M. Karl and W.W. Broenkow. 1987. VERTEX:Carbon cycling in the northeast Pacific. Decp Sea Research 34:267-285 O Martin, Lynn, Na Paniolo o Hawaii, Honolulu Academy of Arts 1987 Mai tin, W.R., M. Bender, M. Leinen and J. Orchardo. 1991. Benthic organic carbon degradation and biogenic silica dissolution in the central equatorial Pacific. Deep Sea Research 38A:1481-1516. Manila and Walters. Personal communication to KBWP as referenced in the Kona Blue ~Y/ater Farms Final Environmental Assessment for an Offshore Open Ocean Fish Farm Project off Unualoha Point, Kona, Hawaii. Mcllllister, J. Gilbert. 1933. Archaeology of Oahu. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 104. Bishop Museum ~~ Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. McCosker, John. 2007. Senior Scientist and Chair, Depaztment of Aquatic Biology, Califo;nia Academy of Sciences In Deep, article in the San Francisco Chronicle Magazine. Apri18, 2007. Meller, Norman, Indigenous Ocean Rights in Hawaii, UH Sea Grant, December 1985. UNIHI - Q SEAGRANT MP-86-O1 Mobley, Jr., J. R., S. S. Spitz, and R. A. Grotefendt. 2001. Abundance of Humpback Whales in I-Iawaiian ', Waters; Results of 1993-2000 Aerial Surveys. Prepared for the Hawaiian Islands Fumpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. ~ September 2001. From Internet Web site: http://hawanhumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/research/ H I HWNMS_Research_Mobley.pdf. Mobley, Jr., J. R., S. S. Spitz, K. A. Forney, R. A. Grotefendt, and P. H. Forestell. 2000. Distribution and Abundance of Odontocete Species in Hawaiian Waters: Preliminary Results of 1993-98 Aerial Surveys. rldmin Report I J.-99-XXC Southwest Fisheries Science Centex. National Marine Fisheries Service. La Jolla, California. 26 pp. Muxakami, Alan, "Konohiki Rights and Marine Resourccs" in Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook (Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie, Ed), Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, 1991. Q Myers, R. A. and B. Worm. 2003. In Nature, vol. 423. May 15, 2003. pp. 280-283. Newman, T. Snell, I-Iawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii in A.D. 1778, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, 1968. ~ Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 9 ~ d O 5. References Nitta, E. T. and J. R. Henderson. 1993. A review of interactions between Hawai`i's fisheries and protected species. Max. Fish. Rev., vol. 55(2): 83-92. NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006a. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) by Species/Stock. Bottlenose dolphin (Turciops trunactus): Hawaiian stock. From Internet Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2000_dobn-hi.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 2007. i~ 2000b. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) by Species/Stock. Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris): Hawaiian stock. From Internet Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po04spinnerdolphinhawaii.pdf. Accessed on March 22, ~ 2007. 2000c. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) by Region. 2006 Pacific. From Internet ~\/eb site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/region.htm. Accessed on March 24, 2007. ~ Norris, K. S. and T. P. Dohl. 1980. Behavior of the Hawaiian spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris. Fish. Bull. 77:821-849. Norris, K. S., B. Wiirsig, R. S. Wells, and M. \Viirsig. 1994. The Hawaiian Spinner Dolphin. University of Q California Press, 408 pp. North Shore Shark Adventures. 2006. Personal corrununication between crew and Kevin Kelly, November 70, 2006. Norwegian Aquaculmre. 2003. Report No. 7 (2003). From Internet Web Site: ~ http://www.bellona.org/reports/Norwegian_Aquaculmre. NPS. 2007. National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. From Internet Web site: http://www.cx.nps.gov/nx/. Accessed on March 27, 2007. Q Ostman-Lind J., A. D. Driscoll-Lind, and S. H. Rickards. 2004. Delphinid abundance, distribution, and habitat use off the western coast of the island of Hawaii. Seattle, WA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Western Administration Support Center. NOAA Contract No. AB133F-02-CN-0723. 29 pp. I Q Ostrowski, A.C. and C.E. Helsley. 2003. The Hawaii offshore aquaculture research project (HOARP): critical research and development issues for commercialization. Pp.285-291 in C.J. Bridget and B.A. Costa- Pierce, eds. Open Ocean Aquaculture Proceedings of the Open Ocean Aquaculmre IV Symposium. The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States. (~ Ostrowski, A. C., J. Bailey-Brock, and P. S. Leung. 2001. Hawaii Offshore Ayuaculmre Research Project (HOARP) -Phase II. Final Report to Sea Grant College Program. Award No. NA86RG0041. Oceanic Institute, Waimanalo. 79 pp. ~ Hawaii Oceanic technology Ahi Aquacu/tdre Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 10 5. References ~ Paxl:, Peter Keikua`ana Park, Fisheries of the Kaloko-`O`oma- Kalaoa Vicinity of North Kona, Flawaii, I November 2nd, 2002 and January 14th 2003 -with Kepa Maly, p. 373 in Ka Hana Lawai`a A Me Na I Ko`a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, O The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Par er, P. L. and T. P. King. 1990. Guidelines Eox F_valuating and Documenting Traditional Culmral Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, DC. ~ Paxxish, F. A., 2007, Density and habitat of three deep-sea corals in the lower I-Iawaiian chain, In: George, R. Y. and S. D. Cairns, eds. 2007. Conservation and adaptive management of seamount and deep-sea coral ecosystems. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami Parzert, W.C., 1969: Eddies in Hawaiian waters. Flawaii Inst. of Geophysics Rept. 69-8, 51 p., 71 figs. Paulo, Walter Keli`iokekai Paulo, Fishing Customs and Fisheries of Kapalilua, South Kona: The \Xtai'anai- ~ Kona Coast of Oahu; and the North western Hawaiian Islands, July 14th, 2002 and March J, 2003 At Miloli`i with Kepa Maly, p. 253 in Ka Hana Lawai`a A Me Na Ko`a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A Histor}' D of Fishing Practices and Maxine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Pe son 1968, "Excavations of Lapakahi, North Kohala, Hawaii Island - 1968." Hawaii State Artbaeological ]ourrral69-2. Division of State Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. PoLdoek, Nathanial, 1789 A Voyage Kound the World...in 7785, 1786, 1787 and 7788..., John Stockdale and Q i George Goulding, London. Peirin, W. F. and ]. W. Gilpatrick, Jr. 1994. Spinner dolphin Stenella longuostris (Gray, 1828). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vo1.5: The First Book of Dolphins, ' pp. 99-128. Academic Press, 416 pp. Pu w, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian Dictionary. Rev. ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Puhihaole, Robert Ka`iwa and Hanohano Punihaole, Lands, Fisheries and Customs of the Familes of the C i Kekaha Region in Nox[h Kona, Hawaii March 6th and 19th, 2003, with Kepa Maly, p. 527 in Ka Hana Lawai`a A Me Na Ko`a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Namre Conservancy, 2003. Reynolds, M. H. and G. L. Ritchotte. 1999. Evidence of Newell's Shearwater Breeding in Puna District, Hawaii. J. Field Ornithology, vol. 68(1):26-32 C Rii:hards, Monty, Interview about Ki`iokalani and the Pahinaluna lease area on June 3Q, 2008 with Da~nd Taxnas in Cultural Impact Assessment fox Offshore Ahi Aquacultuxe Project in North Kohala, prepared by MCS International Eor Hawaii Oceanic Technology, July 2008. C Roark, E. B., T. P. Guildexson, R. B. Dunbar, and B. L. Ingram. 2006. Radiocarbon-based ages and growth rates of Hawaiian deep-sea corals. Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 327: 1-14. Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project - Draff Environmental Impact Statement 11 io ~0 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 5. References Sarver, Dale and Neil Sims. 2003. Personal observation as referenced in the Kona Blue \Vater Farms Final Environmental Assessment for an Offshore Open Ocean Fish Farm Project off Unualoha Point, Kona, Hawaii. Schlesinger, W. H. 1997. The Oceans. Chapter 9 in Biogeochemistxy: An Analysis of Global Change. Pp. 305-307. Schweitzer, Sophia and Michael Gomes, Kohala Aina, Mutual Publishing Co., Honolulu, 2003. SCUBA Guide. 2007. From internet website:. http://www.thescubaguide.com/certiftcation/risks.asps .Site accessed on March 29, 2007. Seki, M. P., J. J. Polvina, and R. E. Brainard. 2001. Biological enhancement at cyclonic eddies tracked with GOES thermal imagery in I-Iawauan waters. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 28 (8): 1583-1586. Shon, Jim, Hawaii Constitutional Convention Studies, 1978, Article X, Axdcle XI (Honolulu: Legislative Reference Bureau 1978) in Mellex, 1985. SIlber, G. K., K. A. Waples, and P. A. Nelson. 1994. Response of free-ranging harbor porpoises to potential giL.-.et modifications. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. (special issue), vol. 15: 579-584. Sims, H. A. 2001. Recreational fishing and other uses of the Keahole Airport offshore area. Appendix III in Environmental Assessment Eor an offshore ocean fish farm project off Unualoha Point, Kona, Hawaii. Kona Blue ~`i/ater Farms (a division of Black Pearls, Inc.) Sims, Neil. 2007. Personal communication with Tetra Tech F_M, Inc., January 15, 2007. Smith, K.L. 1992. Benthic boundary layer communities and carbon cycling at abyssal depths in the central North Pacific. Limnology and Oceanography 37:1034-1056. Smith, K.L. 1992. Benthic boundary layer communities and carbon cycling at abyssal depths in the central North Pacific. Limnology and Oceanography 37:1034-1056. Smultea, M. A., J. L. Hayes, and A. M. Zoidis. 2007. Maxine Mammal Visual Survey in and near the Alenuihaha Channel and the Island of Hawaii: Monitoring in Support of Na~~y~ Training Exercises in the Hawaii Range Complex. January 27 -February 2, 2007, Pield Summary Report. Prepared by: Cetos Research Organization, Oakland, CA., under contract #N62742s-07-P-1895 to NAVFAC Pacific March 5, 2007. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92038. State of Hawaii. 2007. Fish Aggregating Devices (FADS) Program. From Internet Web site: (~ http://www.hawaii.edu/HIMB/FADS/. Accessed on AprIl 3, 2007. ~ Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacu/ture Project -Draft Environmental Impact Statement 12 5. References O Sterling, Elspeth P. and Catherine C. Summers. 1979. Sites of Oahu. 2nd printing. Bishop Museum I Anthropology and Education Departments, Honolulu, I-Iawai`i. Originally published 1978. Sueiss, E. 1980. Particulate organic carbon flux in the oceans-Surface productivity and oxygen utilization. Nature 288:260-263. Thiirman, H.V. and H. H. Webber. 1984. The Ocean Floor Chapter 2 in Marine Biology. pages 40-41. O To~~nonari-Tuggle, Myra J.F. 1981. North Kohala: Perception of u Changing Community. ReporC on file, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of I-Iawaii. To~nonaxi-Tuggle, Myra J. 2002. The US Axmy in Hawaii: An Historic Contex[ for Cultural Resources on US Army Garrison, Hawaii Installations. Prepued fox CEMML and US. Army Garrison, Hawaii. O Intemationa] Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii. UH-Department of Urban and Regional Planning (UH-DURP). 2005 North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Stud}', collection in Bond Memorial Library, Kapaau, Hawaii. USBureau of Economic Analysis. 2006. Local Area Personal Income. Apri125, 2006. USj Census Bureau. 2005a. 2005 American Community Survey. Hawaii County. From Internet \Veb site: li http://factfmder.census.gov. Accessed on April 4, 2007. 2005b. 2005 American Community Survey. Hawaii. Prom Internet \Veb site: ~ http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed on April 4, 2007. 2005c. 2005 American Communih~ Survey. United States. From Internet Web site: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed on April 4, 2007. e Von Holt, Pono and Angie Von Holt, Interview about Ki`iokalani and the Pahinahina lease area on June 17, 2008 with David Tamas in Culmxal Impact Assessment for Offshore Alil Aquaculmre Project in North Kohala, prepared by MCS International for Hawaii Oceanic Technology, December 2008. W II rsig, B. and G. A. Gailey. 2002. Marine mammals' and aquaculture: conflicts and potential resolutions. In ~ Responsible Marine Aquaculmre. R.R. Sticknep and J.P. McVey (eds.), pp. 45-49. CAB Intemational. E Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Drag Environmental Impact Statement 13 ~o ~o ~~ io CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS Degree/School Years of Experience Name Role ~~ ~Q 6 Hawaii Oceanic Technology, Inc. 425 South Street, Suite 2902 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Technology Officer Paul J. Troy, Chief Technical Editor Tetra Tech 737 Bishop Street, Suite 3020 Honolulu, HI 96813 (808) 533-3366 PhD, Oceanography, University of Hawaii Manoa George Redpath Project Manager MS, Ecology, University of California, Davis 33 BS, Fish and Wildlife Biology, UC Davis Stephanie Austin QA/QC MS, Geology, Texas Tech University 2 BS, Chemistry, Wayland Baptist University Susan Carstenn Geology, Land Use, PhD, Environmental Science, University of 7 Au Quality Florida Kitty Courtney Water Quality, PhD, Oceanography 25 Biological Resources MS, Biology BA, Biology Rima Ghannam Socioeconomics MS, Environmental Management, Swiss Federal 10 Institute of Technology BS, Agriculture, American University of Beirut Landin Johnson Geology, Traffic, BA, Economics, University of I-Iawai`i 3 I-Iealth and Safety, Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project - Drat Environmental Impact Statement 1 6. List of Preparers ~ Years of Name Role Degree/School Experience Ke in Kelly Water Quality, MS, Biological Oceanography 13 Biological Resources BS, Biology Dawn Lleces Cultural Resources, BA, Environmental Sciences, University of 6 Land Use, I-Iawai`i Air Quality (} Ann Zoidis Biological Resources MS, Physiology and Behavioral Biology, San 17 Francisco State Univcrsiry BS, Geology, Smith College Amy Cordle Technical Editor BS, Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic 13 Institute and StaCe University Cindy Schad Word Processor BFA, Creative Writing, Emerson College, 1G '~ Boston, MA Dai id Tarnas Consultant MMA, Marine Affairs, U of Washington 17 Q Yashelda Evans GIS/Graphics GIS Technician 6 E August 2008 Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project -Environmental Assessment 2 = 0 0 0 a 0 0 ~o b io n APPENDIX A USER AND VESSEL SURVEYS 0 0 Site Specific User Surveys for North Kohala and Keahole Point Ocean Lease Sites O In order to document the uses and recreational activities adjunct and within the ocean lease site there were six onsite observational surveys, in-person interviews and phone interviews of potential commercial and private boaters conducted around the proposed North Kohala lease site and Alternative Site of Keahole Point. O Observations at Malae Point Date: August 24, 2007 Location: Malae Point, North Kohala, Hawaii Observer: Paul Troy Q The observation station was situated off of the dirt ocean access road located at mile 9 on Akoni Pule Hwv north of Kawaihae Harbor in North Kohala. Observations were made with the aid of binoculars from an elevated position on Malae Point and recorded in a journal. Below is a photograph of Malae Point taken on the day of observation, with the ocean lease site located directly off shore of the point and a small beach area just right of the ~ point. There is a small access dirt road which winds to the beach. All activity in the area was recorded for a one hour observation period which started at 12:10 pm. i OBSERVATIONS: (1.) A small trolling fishing boat of approximately 20 feet length was observed making its way up the North Kohala Coast in a northward direction approximately 500 yards off of the coast. The fishing boat was first spotted 5 miles south of Malae Point and made its way north of the point by the end of the observation period. The vessel passed well near shore of the lease area. fl (2.) A second fishing boat of approximately 30 feet length was observed approaching Malae Point from the North. The second boat was trolling 0 approximately 500 yards off of the coast heading in a southerly direction. The vessel passed well near shore of the ocean lease site. Q (3.) There were four pickup trucks observed around Malae Point that day. Three pickup trucks were parked by the shore with about three to four persons each. There was on shore fishing and family picnicking activities on the beach. One pickup truck was engaged in four wheel driving. (4.) No vessels entered the ocean lease site area of 300 acres during the observation ~ period. Shipboard Observations of North Kohala Ocean Lease Site Date: September 14, 2007 Location: Inside Ocean Lease Site and one mile south ~ Observer: Paul Txoy Observations were taken from a ship located in the middle of the lease site located at 20" OS' 40.00 N 155"55' 40.00 W, which is 2.6 nautical miles due south west of Malae Point on the Island of Hawaii and at a control station located one mile up current ox south east from the ~ center of the lease site. The bathymetxy of the ocean lease site is located over a steep ocean cliff and is in 1342 feet of water. OBSERVATIONS: O 1.) No vessels entered the ocean lease site ox adjacent area during the one hoax observation period. 2.) There were no vessels observed at the control station during the one hour observation period. 3.) Vessel traffic was light in the North Kohala Coastal Zone that day. 4.) Two large trigger fish were found near the surface close to the boat. Q Alternate Site Keahole Point Boat Survey Date: AprIl 24, 2008 Time: 10:00 to 11:00 HST 'J Location: Inside Alternate Ocean Lease Site and one mile south Observer: Paul Txoy Observations were taken from a ship located in the middle of the lease site located at 19°43' 37.25" N 156.06' 31.98"W which is 2.6 nautical miles due west of Keahole Point on the ,J Island of Hawaii and at a control station located one mile up current ox due south from the center of the lease site. The bathymetry of the ocean lease site is located over a steep ocean cliff and is in approximately 3000 feet of water. O ~ ii OBSERVATIONS: 1.) No vessels entered the ocean lease site ox adjacent area during the one hour ~ observation period. 2.) A medium sized fishing vessel was located about two miles west of the alternate lease site. 3.) There were no vessels observed at the control station during the one hour observation period. ~ 5.) Four to five small to medium size fishing vessels were observed in the area. Vessel traffic was moderate in the Keahole Point coastal zone and two Kona Blue vessels were located three miles from the ocean lease site. 6.) A small pod of Pilot Whales (4 to 6) were located one mile off shore from the Harbor entrance, about three miles due south east from the lease site. O PUser Surveys at Preferred Action, Malae Point and Alternate 2, Keahole Point ~ Onshore Malae Point Observations were conducted to determine and compare vessel (traffic around the two proposed site areas, of Malae Point and Keahole Points. The p 'observer remained stationary in a position where the proposed ocean areas and their surrounding waters were visible at all times. Detailed notes of vessel traffic were kept for up to 9.5 consecutive hours. Each site was surveyed at least twice. Additional detailed I data were collected for the Malae Point area. O lkAoldnnrn 5i~e Afea At Ary floe Tirrroe ~~' €t.a' ~'.ct~ D 7 a tz.a y.ol MUM YER~ @f SITE AREJ® i-T A!~[M1' f]fiE TIME A6 7511 3'9 ill 44Ghin 5rtr YYNhin 3 ads a(SOx 4 3 ~Ve uf'~x 0 v~r~a - 0 ~.a ~a 0 0 O 0 O ligD _._.________..._._._.._..______....~..__,...._______ _.....________~ 1125 l~ 3.J5 Q 6:IDAH T~lPM RIDAM Y36AH IR3fuAN I I:lOAM 123p FM I:)0 FTI 2M FM k3S PM t3q PH O LV OIAZIPRlM YEfi&ELS OBSEIMfEO MTtRR 3 MREB. ~ PROP09EU SEIE AREAS PER XALF HO3tR PlN[MUM VESSEL4 QRS~Y® QIfiSRiE 1 PIKES OF PRVP'OSE6 SITE AREAS PER ISAIi IiOUR 0 0 3Q0 75 l NILES QF PROPOSED TITE AREA DIRECr1ON OE YESSFIS *NITFRN 3 NlLET OE PROI'OTEA SITE AREA _. _. ....... TOA _...... _.. Q M 7LS ®Averabe Nlultaer04ssek 3]5 ® A~ 2SA 12T a Q O The term `vessels' includes all watercraft: motorized boats, jetskis ox other personal Q watercraft, kayaks, zodiacs/skiffs, and barges. Personal watercraft axe counted individually, but axe often used in groups. Malac Point Observations: Verse] outside 3 miles of site area was uncovered barge. Covered I barge traversed within 3 miles of site on offshore side of proposed ocean lease site. Keahole O Point Observations: Outside 3 miles of I{eahole Point, 18 kayakers were observed using neaxshoxe waters and axe included in vessel numbers. Frequent vessel traffic within 3 miles I' and outside of 3 miles of proposed area was Kona Blue barge and work boats. In general, !' Keahole Point has greater vessel traffic in the ocean area surrounding the proposed site location then the preferred location of Malae Point. This research provides a preliminary ~ snapshot of vessel traffic in the two areas where the proximity of vessels to the proposed C site areas is examined. Extended Vessel Survey of Malae Point Ocean Lease Site A survey of recreational activity in the general area north of blalae Point was conducted C from August 2007 to October 2008 by HOT. The sun-ey was conducted on seven summer days with low ocean swells and light trade winds. The timing of the survey was selected to ensure that it represented a period of heavy use on a weekend. Observers were situated on Malae Point at 200 feet elevation and used a horizon (r measurement chart to estimate distance from shore. During the 46 hours of observation at the Proposed Action site data points were gathered and recorded. During the entire 46 hours v TurrvngAtouM tlorRdlaulG SaABbanC O of observation at iVlalae Point only two vessels entered the ocean lease sire and were in the area for less than a half hour period (see below). O a Vessels Observed within Malae Point Ocean Lease Site 2 1 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M (O n f~ a0 eCr O O O O r ~ N N M M 7 7 N Y7 (O (O ^ Friday 5/23/2008• Sun 6/2212008 ^ Wed 712/2008 ^Sun 8/24/2008 ^Sun 9/21/2008 ^Mon 9/22/2008 ~ ^ Wed 10/1 /2008 During the observation period a maximum of 12 vessels were traveling near the site within three Q miles but not inside the site (see below). Vessels Observed Outside the o OLS and within Three Miles 1s 10 5 O 0 O ^ Friday 5123/2008• Sun 6/2212008 ^ Wed 7/2/2008 ^ Sun 8/24/2008 ^Sun 9/21 /2008 ^Mon 912212008 ® Wed 10/1 /2008 Most activity in the general Malae Point area consisted of trolling fishing vessels with some Q recreational dive boats. Most of the dive recreational activities are in shallower water (less than 100 feet) and most of the trolling is performed within one mile off shore. Few boats axe expected to venture out into the Hawaii Oceanic Technology operations area, which p vi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M (O r~ eD e0 O m O O ~ ~ N N M M 7~ N N c0 c0 would be located 3 miles (2.6 naudca] miles) out to sea. Barge traffic unlizes a route that places the barges further west of the Proposed Action site. ~ Young Brothers, Ltd. and the Hawaii Superferry were informed about our location, and they found no navigational problems associated with the Ocean Lease Site Malae Point location. The harbor master (Ian Birnie) and harbor manger at Kawaihae Harbor were consulted also I and they found no conflict of harbor operations with the Ahi Project operations. Vessel activity in the area around the Alternative 2 site is more widely distributed than the Proposed Action site, with vessels utilizing the waters both east and west of the Alternative 2 site. Trollers also utilize the 1000 Fathom contour, which is locared somewhat west of the Alternative 2 site. Malae Point and Keahole Point Users Interviews Potential users of the North Kohala and Keahole Point ocean lease sites were interviewed by Steven VanKemp. All personal interviews were conducted in person either on store ', premises (SCUBA operators) or at Honokohau Harbor or Kawaihae Harbor over the course ~! of two days at the end oEAugust, 2007. All phone interviews were conducted over the ' course of two days at the beginning of September 14, 2007. The list of respondents, ~ questions and responses axe presented below. I,.ist of Respondents Commercial Diving and Sailing Oner~tions i\4ethod of Communication Jacks Dive Locker Personal lnterview i Sandwich Isles Divers Personal Interview I Big lsland Divers Personal Interview I Body Glove Personal Interview ~~ Kona Honu Divers Personal Interview I Bottom Time Phone I Mauna Lani Sea Adventures Phone Pacific Rim Divers Phone ~ Living Ocean Adventures: Whale Watch/Dishing Phone ~ Kalemera Phone ~ Kohala Divers Personal Interview Mauna Wela Personal lnterview Commercial, Recreational Fishers Northern Lights Persona] lnterview Sun Downer Personal Interview Eclipse Personal lnterview Hookele Personal Interview Bite Me 11 Personal lnterview lhu Nui Charter Personal Interview Sea Genie ll Personal Interview O O O O C vii i~ Humdinger Personal Interview Golden Dragon Phone ~ Anxious Phone Lavla Phone Catchem 1 Phone Reel Class Phone Illusions Phone ~ Blue Hawaii Phone Alibi II Phone Autumn Maxie Phone Grand Slam Phone Reel Pleasure Personal Interview ~ Private Pishexs Sammy Lu II (Name of Boat) Personal Interview Private (No Name Obtained) Personal Inters*iew Private (No Name Obtained) Personal Interview O Private (No Name Obtained) Personal Interview Mike Personal Interview Steve Personal Interview Questions and Responses O 1. Do You Operate Along North Kohala Coast B etween Kawaihae Harbor and Hawi? Total Participants 38 Yes 7 18.42% No 31 81.58% O Honokohau Users 32 Yes 0 0.00% No 32 100.00% ~ Kawaihae Users G Yes G 100.00% No 0 0.00% 2. At What Depths Do You Operate Along This Coast? O Total 6 0-99 fathoms G 100.00% 100-499 fathoms 1 16.67% 500-1000 fathoms 0 0.00% > 1000 fathoms 0 0.00% O 3. Do you regularly fish/operate around ~1/ZZ buoy? p viii O Total 38 Yes 2 5.26% O No 36 94.74% Honokohau Uscxs 32 Yes 1 3.13% No 31 96.88% ~ Kawaihac Users 6 Yes 1 16.67% No 5 83.33`% 4. Do you operate west of Keahole Point? ~ Total 38 Yes 30 78.95% No 8 21.05% O Honokohau Users 32 Yes 29 90.63% No 3 9.38°/, Kawaihae Users 6 Yes 1 16.67% No 5 83.33% 5. At What Depths Do You Operate Around Kcahole? Total 30 ~ 0-99 fathoms 21 70.00% 100-499 fathoms 19 63.33% 500-1000 fathoms 19 63.33% > 1000 fathoms 9 30.00% c 6. Do you regularly fish/op erate around huoy OT (0TI/C Buoy)? Total 38 Yes 7 18.42% No 31 81.58% C Honokohau Users 32 Yes 7 21.88% No 25 78.13% Kawaihae Users 6 C Yes 0 0.00%~ No 6 100.00% ix C to 10 0 10 to 10 10 10 10 7. What Depths Do You Usually Operate In? '1 otal 0-99 fathoms 100-499 fathoms 500-1000 fathoms >1000 fathoms 3S 20 52.63% 12 31.58% 23 60.53% 6 15.79% 8. What Depths Do You Usually Operate In (Honokohau)? Total 32 0-99 fathoms 19 59.38% 100-499 fathoms 10 31.25% 500-1000 fathoms 23 71.88% >1000 fathoms 6 18.75% 9. What Depths Do You Usually Operate In (Kawaihae)? Total 6 0-99 fathoms 6 100.00% 100-499 fathoms 2 33.33% 500-1000 fathoms 0 0.00% > 1000 fathoms 0 0.00% O x 0 0 0 0 0 0 APPENDIX B o CURRENT STUDY REPORT 0 0 o Analysis of Currents West of Hawaii Island in Relation to Open-Ocean Aquaculture Roger Lukas, Ph.D. O Ocean and Air Global Consultants LLC 12/26/08 O IO 10 10 10 10 INTRODUCTION This report is to present an analysis of the upper ocean currents west of Hawaii Island in the region of the proposed open-ocean aquaculture project. The open-ocean aquaculture site is 2.6 nautical miles southwest of Malae Point. The center of the Ocean Lease Site is 20°05'40.00" N 155°55'40.00" W (Figure 1). The water depth at this location is 402 meters. I''iem~r. 1. Rcgio~i ufOpcn Ocetn Aquacsllhur site (or,~n~e Go.r oR.i~Lnre ofJl~~l~ee Pt.). "lhc location n/~ moored cunrntnx~asorcvuenKs is indicated as HOTEC-1. O Physical processes that contribute to the mean and variable flow in the region include the wind stress and its space-time distribution, tidal motions, and eddies. The long-term average surface currents in this general area are weak, ~ 10 cm/s towards the west O (Lumpkin and Flament, 2001). However, the actual currents at any particular time are often relatively strong (50 cm/s or more) and variable in direction, because the region is dominated by eddies (Patzert, 1969; Lumpkin, 1998). The large variance of sea level observed from satellite altimeters (Figure 2) clearly in the region west of Hawaii Island is associated with strong variations in upper ocean currents (Caul et al., 2008). p 26`N 24 N 22`N 20`N 18 N 16`N 300 350 250 200 150 100 50 1'i;5ure > dle:m erkL~ki~ietii~ rnerb~~ (cm°/s~), /izne~ If192-2005, ra/cul~i[rd /i~oru AVLS'O a~croed sri[el/ite a/iiinetm (after C'alil er aL, 200X). RRENT OBSERVATIONS C) O Current measurements are available for the region west of Hawaii from OTEC environmental studies during the 1980s, from a database ofsatellite-tracked surface drifters, and from shipboard during the recent E-Flux program. In addition, the Navy operational ocean analysis system combines the HyCOM (Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model; Hurlburt et al., 2008) with available ocean and atmospheric observations to estimate the state of the global ocean at very high (8 km) resolution daily. Moored measurements Moored current measurements at the HOTEC-1 location in Figure 1 were made by Edward Noda and Associates from December 1980 to April 1981. The water depth at this location is 1341 m. Currents were measured at depths of 54, 101, 151, 363, 771 m. This record is too short to establish the mean flow with any statistical reliability; however it demonstrates very well the variability of upper ocean flows that affect this area. Figure 3 shows that the current speed in the upper ocean was rarely less than 10 cm/s. During the 168 W 164`W 160'W 156~W 152`W 0 first half of the record, typical speeds were 20 cm/s with frequent increases to 40 cm/s. An event with maximum speeds of more than 80 cm/s towards the north occurred over a O 20 day interval in the middle of the record. As the currents weakened, they veered towards Che west, then southward and finally increasing again towards the northeast. This progression was very likely due to the passage of one or more eddies that formed close to the site. 10 cx r ,~ ~~ ~» am u ~ ~~ ~' ~c m I I I 1 I I - - -- -+- ~ -~ -'--~-- --1-- '- ,- !~ [`rte-+~~ry.~ K_-T ~tgr- l- ,•-r--, mT ~ -i ~~ -rR . t_ ., i ,~~~ ~ ! I' ~ i ~. ~1 mw~ ~3. ~ -3Va im/tai I I ~~r,w,,~ ~ l i I i i I `~'I~~ r - I:~ i _~ 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 i ~ ~ to 10 10 O ii 11N 31Wq tN9. 01341 OriP nldll %.~IY~ O>1311 WlWI wNli 1Qtl91 n.qn WN11 YPOI an[.ll U+Ml+nneen'1 - 54 m /'igeu~,i %e~npenmre (toy p:ene/), c'mzru/diiec(inn(rnirld/c pand);md cnrrenl speed (lolrei~pane/l liar die mer~snrenzenrs ;il.i=Fin dryth li-onl die HOTLG! site. Mixed semidiurnal and diurnal tidal flows are also prominent in the moored velocity measurements. Barotropic (depth independent) tidal flows do not exceed 2-3 cm/s in the open ocean around Hawaii. The larger magnitude of the tidal flows observed at HOTEC- 1 suggests the importance of baroclinic tidal motions, which are known to be stronger than the barotropic tides around Hawaii, outside of the shallow coastal waters (Dushaw et al., 1995). Unlike the barotropic tidal motions, these internal tides are associated with strong vertical shears of the horizontal currents, contributing to the forces that cause vertical mixing. Unlike the open-ocean barotropic tides, the amplitudes and phases of the internal tides are a strong function of space, and thus a diffusive process. O Wind-forced island-trapped baroclinic waves (Merrifield et al., 2002) are another source of current variability, strongly constrained by the bathymetry with alongshore currents much larger than the cross shore flow. The offshore e-folding length scale for the dominant island-trapped mode is about 45 km, with the amplitude of the sea level signal about t/3 of that right at the coast. Figure 4 shows along-shelf current measured 20 m below the surface in 169 m water depth in the Alenuihaha Channel (dctided and ~ smoothed with a 12-hour running mean filter). Pronounced oscillatory flows with peak along-shore speeds of about 50 cm/s were observed during January 1985, with a dominant period of~60 hours. O CG" ~bnowu G i[h ~ n ~~ (\\?Mb l}\f\ HevY / l v~~ E AI°ngsheli Currant "" '"' S /0 15 20 25 3 Dey January 1995 Pi~vre -/. Alouu~sl~ore cnmporeeeit ofenn-entat20m rhu~iug;/annoy lJH.So/Libnre ul Upokt Paint a.. indi~:lPed on snap in Pup panel. pboard measurements Several shipboard surveys of currents and water properties were made in the waters west of Hawaii during the 2004-2005 E-Flux program (Dickey et al., 2008), focused on sampling the mesoscale eddies that are formed there associated with strong upwelling caused by the positive wind stress curl of the trade winds funneling between the mountains flanking the Alenuihaha Channel (Chavanne et al., 2002). Figutes 5-7 show the currents measured by shipboard ADCP from 40 m depth during the E-Flux I, II and 111 cruises. These measurements show the strong, spatially variable upper ocean flows associated with mesoscale eddies in this region (Dickey et al., 2008). Q O O C O.Eddy Contoi - sOf 158°N •~p~ 157°N . 30~ `15B'N~ - i.3d, Longihide. 1 i~me .% G'unen/s a/ ~/0 m dep7h dnrin~ the 1;~-/~7ua~ I ~~mi1r, A~rn ember 6-20. 200-A..A seizing c ~~zlnnic eddf~ nas centered Pbe rerl open <~ialr. C C E 4 E 0 27°N . p -r 'S0 cmfq lu+' Maui ~~ 1 ' -e ,..; .T... _ 3 .. ..... .. 30' :- Transact 6 - ' - -:~: . .. rtmsoit. ' _ R 20'N TransodN4 ~ I +! _ ~ -- - p a ~~ • ~ . ~ ' " . ' t '~ Tha ey Islantl ~: Trans. 5 • -: , , • J . d.Hawan 3D'' - ~, ... ~ Tfansact l,~; - i O ~ . ,~ ,_ , .. ?rsrtscc}2. ~ E-FLUXfI' 40m ADCP vectors ~ 30" ' p 158°W 3p 157°W 3U 156~N `30~ 155°W Longitude ~']f~+ilrB ~J. Lllrre/1(J O/C.LS'lO'f (~ dl -~1~ ]- (/GjJ(~] Cjl[]'/[)p 1 r~iII' ~~Clp1SC~,~dllll8ll' ~l~-~ ~~, 1UD~J tl I~C'd~" fF('~O/]LC edrh~ oats centered hear the emusirravpoint ofd~e htlnsecr /roes. p Mau'.,-' .. ~ ' @ ' .... .;: ?°=':::- Gp :.::: ' 40m ADCP voctors :::::::: : ::::.... 30 iTtensdct5 .: ,~'~`~ ~~ . ,Pw O j .......: ..........: .... - -• - -- - , I i. m ~' ' =1, Transact 6 .~~~•~ ~~ p ~Transme41~. TranseG3' ~ _ ~ i - 19°N 'O.EddyContcr -'~ ::~T~bnsect 4: - ~'50;cm/s TrP~ucti2 ' ~~CTD Casts O 30 30' 158°W ~~' 157"W :30' 756PW ~~ Longitucle~ Figure Z Cunen[s u~cisiinrlat-10 in depth during F.-17u.i-//I cruise, ALvch /ll-27, 2005. A snrnro~ crcluuic p eddy n~l.a centered near the red open circle. p 5 0 Vertical sections of currents along two transects shown in Figure 5 reveal the pronounced surface intensification of the flows in the eddy that was sampled (Figure 8), and the upwelling across the center of the eddy. The strong vertical shears and horizontal shears are shown in Figure 9. V.S AunvLam et W. / Dren-5<'a &snvN II 55 (z008J IBI -12s1 1295 Trarrsed 2. Perpendiwlar Velocity (mdsec) Transed T Papemliwlar Vdodly (cmisec) a ~ _25 70 60 -50 50 40 -75 30 -f00 20 f0 -725 0 -10 .7511 10 -775 ~ "~ -40 200 ~50 80 225 "70 250 80 Transed 2:Tmgeroial Vebariry(crrJsec) Traosed 3: Tangential Yelocily(urosec) n e /~igure 8..571ipbouz/.9DG'Pmelsnrenxvta ohairrents across h,uisccts 2 ruxl3 dnrilq; GI7u.r L Red (b/ucl indicates Dnn~in[n (nut n1) drr section. %%c black lines arc the potenritd denseh~ contums. A'ofi the strong tlolrs, the increase of relncigr lunards the sur-fure and der Igmr//ingnrru-fha eddreenlri-..A/ter tiuns-ebar-;i el aL (200NJ. 1~I Vedicel shear (s~')(x10~1) (B) Horizontal sheer (s-q (x10~s) E (6 E S@ d ~. ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~g~ I ~r.l~ I _ ~ D ~ ~ ,~ ,ID ,~ ,~ Diaunm ebrg Vb tranaM INm) ~wv I llr_l t I i w /an m u ~' ~` pstanm abrq Ne tranmG (Nm) ObGnce abig tM tran¢ecl iNmi ~i hi~~lre 9. Yci7icd scdions o/l z•rtice! and horizonGd rc/ocih ~ shcu- /br Truasrcrs 3 and ~/. I3Ge~1- lines are coutuais u/~densin~ shoo ing [Ge strong uplrcl/ingin [h1s c.rc~lanic eddl: rV[er IVeu~~iu/i eta/. (100HJ. O Q E e C C s E DieWnce abrp Vie aeruecl (Km) to 10 10 10 10 10 O O O Eden and Greatbateh (2008) have shown how the vertical shear in mesoscale eddies (e.g. Figure 9) enhances diapycnal. Thus, in addition to the along-isopycnal dispersion that is caused by the eddy field in the lee of Hawaii, properties are mixed across isopycnals, vertically spreading water properties. Surface drifter measurements Satellite-tracked surface drifter measurements in Hawaiian waters were analyzed by Lumpkin and Flament (2001), showing that the region in the lee of the Hawaiian Islands has relatively large surface current variability, with the root-mean-square (RMS) zonal and meridional components ~ 15 cm/s, which is larger than the magnitude of the time- averagedflow. As discussed above, the eddy field dominates the currents. Surface drifters tracked during the E-Flux I experiment showed that flow around mesoscale eddies is strong and nearly circular, accounting for the eddy translation. The two drifters tracks in Figure 10 show opposite rotation directions, indicating that an anticyclonic eddy-cyclonic eddy pair were affecting the region. More importantly, the crossing drifter trajectories are an indication of the exchange of waters between these features. In other words, the flows are diffusive. 30i 15' 20'N m J 45' 30' 15' Longitude !'gme 10, Driftrrtryecto~iesd~rrirgGFh~.rl. 0 Lumpkin (1998) analyzed the historical database ofsatellite-tracked drifters in the region of the Hawaiian Islands. Figure 1 1 shows 3-day long segments of the tracks of O 0 eight drifters from the vicinity of the Alenuihaha Channel. Note that all five drifters that started to the northwest of Hawaii Island moved northward and into the generally southwestward flow in the Channel. However, two drifters were carried "upstream" relative to the mean flow, underlining the importance of eddies for displacement and dispersion of water parcels in this region. 2t.5 ~~ I'ignre 11. 77ure-elar tra/cctnrics uJ~saPC1/iir-trec~ked smli~cr driltris in !Ge rrh~on o/7he Alrrmihaha C'hanncl. Dots indreetr der position o(drr dnftrr ae !Le rnd o%deiee dna. AJ1rr I_umpkm (L29K1. Dynamic data assimilation The U.S. Navy uses the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HyCOM; Hurlburt et al., 2008) to assimilate satellite and in situ observations to produce daily analyses of the global ocean at high resolution. These can be found at http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.miVGLBhycoml-12/hawaii.html including animations for the past 30 days and one year. These analyses fully resolve the mesoscale, and a portion of the submesoscale eddies. O O ~i Analyzed surface salinity (Figure 12) is a good tracer for the upper ocean flow in the region west of Hawaii Island. These analyses typically reveal a spectrum of eddying motions, dominated by the mesoscale, the scale at which energy is generally introduced 0 O 10 10 O ligr~re J2 Snapshot nlan;di ced sudixr sa/inilr /ie/d ;rromul the H,~ni.iiiin 1s1:uulc %rJune 27, 2008. Anrms scheuiatlcilL~i!lnstrate lLe di~ectinn ofllan: A'ote the spir~lleahn'es n/rich arc associated iritG the circo/atinei m eddies. Arnte the crr/nme cu~r:oLetiou to [Ge crest nfl~l~rnaii lv/aad, cuonec7ed to dee ruiteerdonic Ilom sondnrestofOaho. Animations o(thesc auahses reiea/the nc6 space-tinx sti-ucnne o1 dze don's in flu's region. O DIFFUSION ESTIMATES Lumpkin (1998) and Lumpkin and Flament (2001) analyzed the historical surface drifter database to produce maps of the spatial distribution of mean currents and their variability. In addition, they extracted Lagrangian integral scales (Table 1). Their main O conclusion is that the eddy-dominated flows in this region are highly dispersive. The integral time and length scales in Table 1 delineate the highly diffusive regime when an initial cluster of drifters (or tracer) is released at a point from the advection dominated regime that occurs when the drifters are sufficiently separated in space. Within ~ this diffusive regime, the mean-square particle separation increases quadratically with time, to to the eddy field by local wind stress curl. Through dynamical interactions, energy flows to smaller horizontal scales, where it enhances vertical mixing through the vertical current shear and strain of the density field. 0 <x,2> - <u,z> t~~ slowing however to a linear growth beyond the Lagrangian time scale. Here, <u'Z> is p the mean-squared velocity deviation from the mean flow that is acting on the cluster of drifter or water parcels. Apparent eddy diffusivity is defined as, which grows linearly with time in the diffusive regime, and becomes approximately p constant in the advective regime. i/e !. Tiure sca/es /ene4G scales, ;arrl rddr dittirsinn mrttirien[s &m dee cored curl rueridion;d conrpunrutc oflluir the region nzst ofnorth I~an~7ii LsGmd (lir~m /.umpkin and Flanrent (100U. Time Length Eddy scale scale (km) diffusion, KX, (days) (x 103 m2/s) Zonal component 4 8 58 9.6 Meridional component 4.0 53 7.3 IFFUSIVE BALANCE The basic conservation equation for the concentration of material C following a water parcel is dC/dt =source -sink -mixing, assuming that C is neutrally buoyant. In this case, we are only concerned with the upper ocean horizontal flow field. (If C is denser than the seawater parcel, it will sink, which will only enhance dilution.) O O O The source term for fish by-waste within the water parcel is zero after it passes p through the aquaculture cage. The initial concentration within the cage is a function of the flow rate through the cage and the rate of production of by-waste within the cage. For a fixed production rate, faster flows will result in a smaller initial concentration for the water parcels leaving the cage. As seen in Figure 3, the rate of flow in the area west of Hawaii Island is highly variable in speed and direction. [t is rarely less than 10-15 cm/s. ~ The sinks for by-waste within the water parcel are due to consumption (e.g grazing by zooplankton, uptake by phytoplankton) and possibly photochemical reactions. Mixing has vertical and horizontal components, with the horizontal component p dominating, though the vertical component is also important. The challenge is to model the mixing processes appropriately and to estimate the corresponding parameters. 10 Q 0 The advection-diffusion equation for horizontal flow in the absence of sources and sinks can be written as O oGot = uaC/7x + v8C/8y + Kn[7~C/8x~ + 7~C/8}~], assuming that Kh (given by Kxx from Table 1) does not vary significantly in space. This equation allows an upper bound (sinks and vertical mixing are neglected) to be ~ placed on the increase of by-waste products at any point outside of the cage given the time-varying on weekly time scales and the eddy diffusion from Table 1. The relatively large initial concentration variation orthogonal to the flow trajectories, due to the nearly point-source nature of the aquaculture cage, will lead to large cross-flow dispersion of by-waste during the first 4-5 days after water parcels leave the cage. O The conservation equation for C can be solved along parcel trajectories when the initial concentration is known. These trajectories can be defined by weekly-averaged flow fields, which are generally highly variable, requiring a very sophisticated numerical model to simulate and predict, such as the HyCOM. CONCLUSIONS O The proposed site has relatively weak long-term average flows, and is frequently subject to strong transient motions associated with eddies. The proposed site is in a Q region that is exposed to strong positive wind stress curl, which drives upwelling and the development of cyclonic mesoscale eddies. These eddies retain their coherence for much shorter times than the anticyclonic eddies that form further to the south in the lee of Hawaii (Calil et al., 2008). Thus, they tend to be more dispersive than the average of both cyclonic and anticyclonic motions studied by Lumpkin (1998). ~ Strong vertical shears are usually found in these eddies, causing strong vertical mixing (Eden and Greatbatch, 2008). This vertical mixing combined with the horizontal dispersion associated with the mesoscale and submesoscale eddies, suggests that the proposed site is in an ideal region to minimize accumulation of by-waste products from O open-ocean aquaculture. O O O Should an accumulation of by-waste occur, it will very likely be dispersed within a Few days (Table 1), as the strong cross-flow concentration curvature increases dispersion. An accumulation of by-waste will also likely be reduced through neglected sinks (e.g., consumed by phytoplankton and zooplankton). tt C RENCES P.H.R., K. J. Richazds, Y. Jia, and R.R. Bidigare, 2008: Eddy activity in the lee of the Hawaiian Islands. Deep-Sea Res. II, 55, 1179-1194. C me, C., P. Flament, R Lumpkin, B. Dousset, and A. Bentamy, 2002: Scatterometer O observations of wind variations induced by oceanic islands: implications for wind-driven ocean circulation. Can. J. Remote Sensing, 28, 466-474. Dickey, T.D., F. Nenciolia, V.S. Kuwahara, C. Leonazd, W. Black, Y.M. Rii, R.R. Bidigare, and Q. Zhang, 2008: Physical and bio-optical observations of oceanic cyclones west of the O island of Hawaii. Deep-Sea Res. II, 55, 1195-1217. Dushaw, B. D., B. D. Cornuelle, P. F. Worcester, B. M. Howe, and D. S. Luther, 1995: Barotropic and baroclinic tides in the central North Pacific Ocean determined from longrange reciprocal acoustic transmissions. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 25, 631-647. O C., and R.J. Greatbatch, 2008: Diapycnal mixing by meso-scale eddies. Ocean Modeling, 23,113-120. rt H.E., E.P. Chassignet, J.A. Cummings, A.B. Kara, E.J. Metzger, J.F. Shriver, O.M. Smedstad, A.J. Wallcraft, and C.N. Barron, 2008: Eddy-resolving global ocean prediction. In "Eddy-Resolving Ocean Modeling", M. Hecht and H. Hasumi, Eds., Geophys. Monograph Ser., 17, doi: 10.1029/177GM21. Kuwahara, V.S., F. Nencioli, T.D. Dickey, Y.M. Rii, and R.R. Bidigare, 2008: Physical (~ ~ dynamics and biological implications of Cyclone Noah in the lee of Hawaii during E- Flux I. Deep-Sea Res. II, 55, 1231-1251. Lumpkin, C.F., 1998: Eddies and currents of the Hawaiian Islands. Ph.D. dissertation, U. Hawaii at Manoa, 282 pp. O Lumpkin, R. and P. Flament, 2001: Lagrangian statistics in the central North Pacific J. Mar. Syst., 29, 141-155. Merrifield, M. A., L. Yang, and D. S. Luther (2002), Numerical simulations of a stone-generated O island-trapped wave event at the Hawaiian Islands, J. Geophys. Res., 107(C10), 3169, doi:10.1029/2001JC001134. Nencioli, F., Kuwahara, V.S., Dickey, T.D., Rii, Y.M., Bidigare, R.R., 2008. Physical dynamics and biological implications of a mesoscale eddy in the lee of Hawaii: Cyclone Opal O observations during E-Flux III. Deep-Sea Research Part II, 1252- 1274. 12 0 Patzert, W.C., 1969. Eddies in Hawaiian waters. Technical Report 69-8, Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii at Manoa. O O O O O to to ~o 0 0 13 O O O O O O O O APPENDIX C o CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT c 0 0 0 0 Hawai `i Oceanic Technology Proposed Ahi Aquaculture Farm ~ North Kohala Ocean Lease Site o Cultural Impact Assessment to to 10 December 24, 2008 prepared by David Tarnas, M.M.A. Marine and Coastal Solutions International, Inc. P.O. Box 6882 Kamuela, HI 96743 O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 1 of 122 0 Table of Contents 1.0 Methods and Procedures 2.0 Biographical information on individuals consulted 3.0 Historical and Cultural Source Materials Consulted 4.0 Cultural Resources, Practices and Beliefs Identified 4.1 Regulatory Framework for identifying native Hawaiian resources: 4.2 Native Hawaiian Culture and the Ocean 4.3 Fishing 4.4 Brief general history of konohiki rights and the ahupua`a ''. 4.5 The Cultural Setting in the Region of Influence ~~, 4.6 The Cultural Setting in the Larger ocean area surrounding the Region of Influence, including nearby adjacent coastal waters 4.7 The Cultural Setting in the Coastal land area adjacent to the ocean lease area 5.0 Nai~ure of Cultural Practices and Beliefs Affected by the Proposed Project ~~ 5.1 The Cultural Setting In the Region of Influence 5.2 Potential for Unknown Resources 6.0 Confidential Information 7.0 Conflicting Information 8.0 Anl~analysis of the potential effect of the proposed action 8.1 Potential impacts of proposed action on cultural resources, practices or beliefs in the ocean lease site 8.2 Potential impacts of proposed action on cultural resources, practices or beliefs in [he adjacent ocean area surrounding ocean lease site 8.3 Potential impacts of proposed action on cultural resources, practices or ', beliefs on the adjacent land 8.4 Summary of Conclusions Regarding Potential Impact of Proposed Action 9.0 Limited Cultural Impact Assessment of Alternative Si[e off Ke"ahole Point in Kona ! 9.1 Cultural Resource Summary for Alternative Site off Keahole Point, ' and adjacent shoreline area 9.2 Potential Impacts of Proposed Action on Cultural Resources in alternative ocean lease area and surrounding area 10.0 Bibliography 11.0 Appendix A Copy of Royal Patent 7216 to Fanny Young for Ki`iokalani ahupua`a ] 2.0 Appendix B Transcripts of Oral Histories ~'~~ William Akau Monty Richards Pono and Angie von Hol[ i Kimo, Leina`ala and Bernard Ho`opai ~, Eddie "Lala" La`au Kwanji Fukuyama 2 O 5 12 12 12 13 16 20 20 2l 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 41 42 44 44 46 47 53 54 54 70 80 82 89 106 0 List of Figures Figured: Listing of Previous historic and archeological research Figure 2: "Section of Pili Lands, Surveyed for the W aimea G. &A. Co. February 1862, Sam. C. Wiltse, Surveyor Figure 3: Map from Bonk (1968) of archeology studies on Kohala coastal lands Figure'4: Two Aerial Views of Ocean Lease Site Figure ~~: Hawaii Island Commercial Catch: 1900 Figure 6: Information on six ahupua'a in coastal region around Malae Point Figure ~7: Place names in Ki'ioka]ani ahupua a from Boundary Commission testimonials Figure ~8: Place names in the Puanui ahupua'a from Boundary Commission testimonials 9 10 11 IS 31 32 33 Q Cultural [mpact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 2 of 122 ~ 0 1.0 Methods and Procedures This section presents a discussion of the methods applied to identify and interview individuals and p organizations identified who are familiar with cultural practices and features associated with the project area. This cultural impact assessment study was done using the Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts adopted by the Hawaii Environmental Council in 1997 (OEQC 1997) to ensure compliance with Chapter ~ 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The author first identified those people who are familiar with the cultural practices and features associated with the project area, based on his twenty year experience in local land and ocean use issues, and consultations with local community leaders. With each individual or group, the interview process was to thank them for their time and present them O with a brief description of the project and that the company is preparing a Cultural Impact Assessment on the potential impact of the project on cultural resources and practices in the project site and surrounding area as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. After this introduction, the interviewer would first ask permission to record the session and take notes on the conversation. Then he would ask the individuals for their family genealogy history and their relation ~ to the land; about stories and times they associate with the land, historical and cultural resources, practices and values associated with the project site and surrounding sea and land; any memories they have of the land and the ocean in the area; any cultural values they associate with the land or ocean in the area. Then, he would ask the interviewee's perspective on the potential impact on cultural resources, practices, values of the proposed project. And finally, at each meeting with an individual, the Q interviewer would ask if there is someone else to consult about this land or ocean. The interviewer would receive suggestions and follow up with these individuals for an interview or consultation Notes and transcripts for each meeting were prepared and returned to interviewees for review, correction and release. ~ The series of interviews began with a kupuna who is recognized widely as the person to consult on any ocean related matter in the Kawaihae area, William Akau. He is the former Harbor Master for Kawaihae and lives there today. Mr. Akau was born in Kawaihae, and is the eldest member of the 5`h generation native Hawaiian family from the Kawaihae area, with ancestral ties to Kawaihae Uka, just mauka of the village. In the interview, Mr. Akau said that the area on the shoreline closest to the ocean a lease site is the Pu`u Ulaula area, between Waiakailio Bay and Black Point (Malae Point). He said this whole area has been under ranching for generations in Kahua Ranch. Mr. Akau recommended to talk with the owner of Kahua Ranch, Monty Richards. He also recommended to talk with Pono Von Holt, the owner of Ponoholo Ranch that has the lease now. On the ocean user side, Mr. Akau recommended to talk with Lala La`au about `opelu fishing, and to one of the long-time trollers and bottomfishermen from Kohala. The meeting was at his home in Kawaihae on June 18, 2008. Transcript of this meeting ~ was prepared from an electronic recording. The transcript was reviewed and approved on December 19, 2008, and is in Appendix B. Monty Richards talked with the author on June 17, 2008, who agreed that Kahua probably was the entity responsible for the stewardship of the land and ahupua`a in this area. He said they had the lease on over d four thousand acres of state land there with the Pahinahina lease for generations. Kahua owned the makai lands of Ki`iokalani and Puaiki ahupua`a, located at Malae Point. Monty said that the Pahinahina lease and the Ki `iokalani parcel were transferred to Pono Holo Ranch in an amicable separation into two ranches of Kahua Ranch and Ponoholo Ranch in 1989. Mr. Richards recommended to go talk to Mr. ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 3 of 122 0 Von Hblt. At the author's request, Mr. Richards agreed to do an oral history interview later. He said he'd also think about anyone else to consult. Pono and Angie Von Holt met with the author on June 17, 2008, and they gave the background history ~ they knew and recommended to talk with the Ho`opai family, who is the Native Hawaiian paniolo familylwho has been working for Kahua since 1928, and regularly uses Ki`iokalani, the coastal area locat ~ at Malae Point, the land closest to the ocean ]ease site. The meeting took place at the Ponoholo Ranch headquarters, Kohala. A voice recorder was not used for this consultation and rthe transcript was reconstructed from notes taken by the author during the meeting. The transcript was prepared, reviewed O and approved on September 17, 2008, and is in Appendix B. Three members of the Ho`opai family met with the author on June 28, 2008, including Kimo, Leina`ala, and Bernazd Ho`opai. They spoke about their stories of cultural practices, resources and values associated with this azea. The interview took place at the Ho`opai family home. It was not recorded because the electronic recorder malfunctioned. The transcript was reconstructed from notes taken by the ~ author, during the interview. The transcript was prepazed, reviewed, revised and approved on October 7 and 9, 2008, and is in Appendix B. Mont}' Richards was interviewed by the author at the Kahua Ranch headquarters on June 30, 2008 and recorded an oral history interview concentrating on stories of this region in pazticulaz. A transcript was O prepared and reviewed and approved on December 17, 2008, and is in Appendix B. After consultations with William Akau, the Ho`opai family and Sara Peck (UH West Hawaii Sea Grant Extension Agent) and some Kawaihae-based recreational trollers, three long time fishers were identified and selected for interviews, two who primarily target `opelu along the shoreline between Kawaihae and O Mahukona: Lala La`au and Robert Cambra; and one fisherman who targets bottomfish and trolls in the ocean off the Kohala coast: Kwanji Fukuyama. Eddie ~Lala La`au is recognized as the kupuna `opelu fisherman of the area. His father was an `opelu fisherman before him, active in the 1940s and afterward. Lala was interviewed on July 3, 2008 at the Kawaihae Fish Market, now owned by his daughter. The interview was recorded and a transcript was prepared. The final transcript was prepared, reviewed and approved on September 17, 2008, and is in Appendix B. Kwanji Fukuyama is recognized as a long time bottom fisherman. When in season, he targets onaga, opakapaka, ehu and the other four of the seven bottom fish species. Kwanji also trolls for ono and Ca mahin7ahi. He was interviewed at his home in Hawi on August 19, 2008. The interview was recorded and a transcript was prepazed. A transcript was prepared, reviewed, revised and approved on September 9, 2008, and is in Appendix B. Robert Cambra, Sr. is a long time `opelu fisherman, who had previously fished for bottomfish. His ~ father;in-law was Takeo Yamasaki, who started fishing about 50 years ago and fished actively until about 20 years ago. Robert fished with his father-in-law for many years. He fished for `opelu, weke, uku, trolled for mahi and ono, and sometimes bottom fish. He was consulted at his home in Hawi on August 19, 2008, and again on December 22, 2008, and provided extensive information on bottoriifishing that is included in this report. l7 Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 4 of 122 ~ 0 2.0 Biographical information on individuals consulted This section presents the biographic information concerning the individuals consulted, their particular ~ expertise, and their historical and genealogical relationship to the project azea, as well as information concerning the persons submitting information or interviewed, their pazticulaz knowledge, and cultural expertise, if any, and the historical and genealogical relations to the project area. William Akau was the first contacted. He is the eldest member of the Akau family, which goes back for O five generations in Kawaihae, with ancestral ties to Kawaihae Uka. William is the former harbor master of Kawaihae, and recognized as the Native Hawaiian kupuna and konohiki of anything to do with the ocean in the Kawaihae area. Monty Richards, owner of Kahua Ranch, was identified by Mr. Akau as the eldest konohiki of this area O of ocean since Kahua Ranch owned and leased all the land in this region for generations. Monty is the past president of Kahua Ranch, having turned management of the ranch to his son, Tim. Monty Richazds is the son of Herbert Montague "Monty" Richards, and nephew of Atherton Richards, who co- founded Kahua Ranch in 1928 with Ronald Von Holt. They were grandsons of William Richards, an early missionary pioneer in Hawaii. ~ Pono Von Holt, owner of Ponoholo Ranch is the son of Ronald Von Holt, co-founder of Kahua Ranch in 1928 with Atherton Richazds. Ronald is the grandson of Hermann von Holt from Hamburg, who arrived in Hawaii in 1851 and established a successful store on Oahu. William Akau recognized Pono von Holt as a konohiki of the region, especially since Pono Holo Ranch runs the ranch in the Pu`u Ulaula region, including the 4,000 acre Pahinahina lease from the State of Hawaii, and owns the shoreline parcel of the Q Ki`iokalani ahupua'a. Pono and his wife, Angie provided an interview and were consulted. Kimo Ho`opai was born at Kahua in 1937. His father, Clement Ho`opai started working at Kahua in 1929 in the early days of Kahua. His mother was Lily Likelike, born in Hawi. Kimo Ho`opai is recognized as the last of the old-time paniolo of this area. Kimo's wife, Leina`ala also was born at ~ Kahua to her father Charles Akina and mother Rose Pe`ahi Akina. Her father started working at Kahua in 1928 when the Ranch was formed. Their son Bernard Ho`opai also works for Kahua. With Bernard's grandchildren carrying on the paniolo tradition, the Ho`opai family is a fifth generation Native Hawaiian paniolo family working for Kahua Ranch. ~ Kimo, Leina`ala and Bernard Ho`opai and their ohana aze recognized as Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners for their continuous use of Ki`iokalani for generations, for their lifestyle of camping, fishing, and gathering on the shoreline and coastal waters. This family carries on the stories of native Hawaiian history, cultural values and traditions to the next generations. As a family, they provided an oral history interview. ~ Michael Hanohano is President of the nonprofit cultural group, Ka`ike o Ka`Aina, which is the lessee of Puanui makai parcel from the landowner Kamehameha Schools -Bishop Estate. Michael is also the great grandnephew of William Pitt Leleiohoku, the original Land Commission Awardee for Puanui ahupua`a, just north of Malae Point. William Pitt Leleiohoku was a prince of the Kingdom of Hawaii and member of the reigning House of Kalakaua. Mr. Hanohano was consulted about the project. O Eddie "Lala" La`au is recognized as the kupuna `opelu fisherman in the Kawaihae area. He was born here, and his father and grandfather also fished these waters before him. He is a Native Hawaiian O Cultural lmpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 5 of 122 O cultural practitioner and provided an oral history interview. Mr. La`au was interviewed at the Kawaihae Fish Market, now owned by his daughter. Kwanji Fukuyama, who is 85 years old, is a long time bottom fisherman, who has fished the waters ~ between Puako and Mahukona for years. Mr. Fukuyama was born in Hoea camp, near Hawi, on May 17, 1923 to Ataro and Shizue Fukuyama, both of whom had immigrated from Japan. When in season, Mr. Fukuyama targets onaga, opakapaka, ehu and the other four of the seven bottom fish species. He also trolls for ono and mahimahi. His son is Peter, who is also a fisherman. Mr. Fukuyama provided an oral history interview, with follow up written comments. d Robert Cambra, Sr., was born in Hawi in 1938. He father was Arthur Cambra, born in Hawi in 1911. His grandfather immigrated to Hawai `i from Portugal. Robert Cambra is a long time `opelu fisherman in this larea between Kawaihae and Mahukona. He had previously fished for bottomfish in the same area. His father-in-law was Takeo Yamasaki, who started fishing about 50-60 years ago and fished actively until about 20 years ago. Mr. Cambra fished with his father-in-law for many years. He fished p for `opelu, weke, uku, trolled for mahi and ono, and sometimes bottom fish. Mr. Cambra generously provided several consultations in person and over the phone. O O O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 6 of 122 ~ Q 3.0 Historical and Cultural Source Materials Consulted The individuals who have a historical association with the ocean in the ocean lease area provided very O important information on the cultural resources and activities in the area. William Akau is a native Hawaiian who is the eldest in a fifth generation family from the Kawaihae area, and who served as the local harbor master for many yeazs. Lala La'au is a native Hawaiian whose ancestors are from the Puako and Kona area, and who has fished for `opelu between Kawaihae and Mahukona like his father and grandfather before him. Kwanji Fukuyama is the 85-year old son of Japanese immigrants, born at Q Haena, neaz Hawi, who has fished this area throughout his life. Robert Cambra, born sixty yeazs ago in Kohala, is the great grandson of a Portuguese immigrant to Kohala and has fished this area throughout his life, sometimes with his father-in-law Mr. Yamasaki, who fished this area before him, stazting 50 years ago. The individuals who have an historical association with the adjacent coastal lands provided additional Q important information on the cultural resources and activities in the general area including nearshore waters and the coastal lands. Monty Richards runs Kahua Ranch and is a kama`aina whose great grandfather was a missionary pioneer in Hawaii, and whose father and uncle co-founded Kahua Ranch eighty years ago on the adjacent coastal lands. Pono von Holt runs Ponoholo Ranch and is kama`aina whose great grandfather emigrated to Hawaii from Germany, and whose father co-founded the ranch O eighty years ago on the adjacent coastal lands. The Ho`opai family are a native Hawaiian family who have lived and worked on the adjacent coastal ranch lands for over eighty years. In addition to the interviews and consultations with these individuals, the author researched historical documents in person at the Hawaii State Public Librazy System's two branches in the Kohala area: the O Thelma Pazker Memorial Librazy in Waimea (Kamuela), South Kohala and the Bond Memorial Library in Kapa`au, North Kohala. The Bond Memorial Library had a complete report from the North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Landscape Study done in 2005 by University of Hawaii Department of Urban and Regional Planning under Dr. Luciano Minerbi, which provided a wealth of information about the region. The author also researched the Hawaiian collection of books and O historical maps at the University of Hawaii at Hilo Mo`okini Library, researched records on Royal Patents and Land Court Awards at the Hawai `i State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Bureau of Conveyances, researched title history in the Hawaii County Planning Depaztment records, and researched Hawaiian language newspapers through the Hawaiian Nupepa Collection at the Bishop Museum on-line library. O A bibliography of all the documents used in the research is included below. While the author is not able to read Hawaiian language and translate it into English, this limitation did not have a material effect on the historical reseazch because the author obtained English translations of relevant Hawaiian language documents, especially using the documents collected in the North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Landscape Study done in 2005 by University of Hawaii Department of Urban and Ci Regional Planning. This comprehensive collection fills several boxes at the Bond Memorial library and is accessible to the public as reference documents. This study included English translations of Royal Patents, Land Court Awards and Boundazy Review Commission testimony regarding lands in Kohala. In addition, there was reseazch done by Kepa Maly for the UH DURP study on the Coastal Resources and Cultural Landscape of North Kohala, on the moolelo about the Kohala coastal region. This reseazch C9 included an English translation of He Moolelo no Makalei, published in 1928 in Ka Hoku O Hawaii, and stories about Kohala Waho (leeward Kohala). English translations of early newspaper azticles written in Hawaiian available at the Hawaiian Nupepa Collection on line also provided additional information for research purposes. O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 7 of 122 __ Fi¢ure~~ 1: Listing of Previous historic and archeoloeical research Previous research about the proposed ocean lease site: • No documented historical or archeological research has been conducted specifically a[ the proposed ocean lease site. Previous research about the ocean waters in the geiaeral area between Kawaihae and Mahukona: • Akau 1998 interview in Maly 2003 • (.a`au 2004 interview in Pacific Worlds, 2004 • Ellis 1963 • Newman 1968 • Bonk 1968 • DURP 2005 Previous research about the native Hawaiian cultural use of the ocean, in general • Newman 1968 • Shon 1985 • Murakami, 1991 • Mellcr, 1985 • Maly, 2003 • Manu 1992 • MacKenzie (Ed), 1991 • Kosaki1954 • Iverson, e[ al 1990 • Jordan and Evermann, 1902 • Cobb 1968 • Campbel11967 Previous Research a6mtt the coastal area adjacent to the proposed lease site: • Bergin 2004 • Bonk 1968 • Cahi111999 • Clark 1986 • Damon 1950 • UH-DURP 2005 • Ellis 1968 • Kirch 1994 • Maly 2005 • National Park Service Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, 2007 • Newman 1968 • Newman 1970 • Pearson 1968 • Schilt and Sinoto 1980 • Soehren 1969 • Schweitzer 2003 • Tomonari-Tuggle 1973 • Tomonari-Tuggle 1988 • Tuggle and Griffin 1973 Previou s Research about Hawaiian culture in general • Dorrance and Morgan 2000 • Fornander 1996 • Kamakau 1992 • Kolb 1991 • Kuykenda111968 • Malo 1951 • Tomonari-Tingle 2002 (Please see bibliography for further information) 0 0 d 0 a Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 8 of 122 ~ to 10 10 Figure 2: "Section of Pili Lands, Surveyed for the Waimea G. &A. Co. February 1862, Sam. C. Wiltse, Surveyor .Crap//i~. S, O O O ` O j p Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 9 of 122 0 Figureil3: Map from Bonk (1968) of archeology studies on Kohala coastal lands ~, .. t ~_. - f ~ Bask"~uirai'i~f(:'ainixl Trx~k~Nu6alx~LwwarJ Wzl ' (Slate ITistorie.Ctrseivation Oivision•Haa-rii~ ~- ''' .' I,..~_.,,,_._ ,. r ~~' ~ _ ~ _ ~a ~ ~- ~~ al ~. ~~~$ '~~ ~ ~, i -- ,~,: s ^ y - ~, ~ _ ~€ ~ ,, ~ a- I ~, ' ~~ . ~ f'.'8 • ' ' i \L} ;Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 10 of 122 O d V O O 4 O v e 0 Q ~d O I C5 to O d O Figure 4: Two Aerial Views of Ocean Lease Site Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 11 of 122 C 4.0 Cultural Resources Practices and Beliefs Identified This section includes a discussion concerning the cultural resources, practices and beliefs identified, and, the location of resources and practices within the broad geographical area in which the proposed action is located, as well as the direct or indirect significance or connection of resources and practices to the C project site. First an historical background of the cultural practices of fishing and konohiki management is presented. Then, an analysis is presented of the cultural resources in the Region of Influence, in the ocean area surrounding the proposed ocean lease site, and in the coastal land area adjacent to the proposed ocean lease site. 4 1 Reaulatory Framework for identifying native Hawaiian resources: Native Hawaiian resources consist of properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a Native Hawaiian group. These can include traditional cultural places or properties, prehistoric or historical archeological sites, such as heiau, burial sites, houses, gathering sites, work sites, special use sites, and plants and animals used for subsistence and other purposes. A traditional cultural property (TCP) is defined in the U.S. National Park Service in 1990 as "generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community." (Parker and King 1998) There are also sites that are not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places but may be still considered areas of traditional importance (ATI) because they are rooted in the community's history and are important to maintaining cultural identity. 4.2 Native Hawaiian Culture and the Ocean The ocean was deeply woven on a day to day basis with the life of Hawaiians throughout their history. The ocean is rich in cultural significance as embodiments of gods and goddesses, as well as the home of personal gods, or `aumakua. Maly (2004) states: In Hawaiian culture, natural and cultural resources are one and the same. Native traditions describe the,formation (literally the birth) of the Hawaiian [slands and the presence of life on, and around them, in the context of genealogical accounts. All forms of the natural environment, from the skies and mountain peaks, to the watered valleys and lava plains, and to the shoreline and ocean depths are believed to be embodiments of Hawaiian gods and deities. One Hawaiian genealogical account records that Wakea (the expanse of the sky -father) and Papa-hanau-moku (Papa, who gave birth to the islands) -also called Hamnea-nui-hanau-wawa (Great Haumea, born time and time again) -and various gods and creative forces of nature, gave birth to the islands. Hawaii, the largest of the islands, was the first born of these island children. As the Hawaiian genealogical account continues, we j<nd that these same god-beings, or creative forces of nature who gave birth to the islands, were also the parents of the first man (Haloa), and from this ancestor all Hawaiian people are descended (David Malq 1951: Beckwish, 1970; Pukui and Korn, 1973). [t was in this context of kinship that the ancient Hawaiian Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculntire Project p. ]2 of 122 0 addressed their environment, and it is the basis of the Hawaiian system of land use. (Maly 2004: 5). O Traditional and customary practices of the ocean include many types of fishing, which were used for trolling, net fishing for `opelu, bottom fishing, as well as thrownet, fishtraps and harpoon fishing from shore. Traditional use of coastal resources along the shoreline and intertidal areas also includes gathering of wana, `opihi, and various limu for consumption. Konohiki were those given the authority to manage the resource use in the ahupua`a, establishing boundaries, kapu seasons, to ensure good hazvests ~ for ahupua`a tenants, and the local chief. 4.3 Fishing Among the literature cited above, the one document which provides a comprehensive resource on the history of fisheries in Hawaii is Kepa and Onaona Maly's comprehensive work, Ka Hana Lawai `a A Me ~ Na Ko`a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands prepared for the Nature Conservancy in 2003. This document compiles information on the history of fishing practices and marine fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands from Native Hawaiian traditions, historical accounts, government communications, kama`aina testimony and ethnography. For a detailed analysis on the topic, the reader is referred to this resource for study. O For an historic analysis of fisheries in the Kohala area or Hawaii island, the reader is referred to T. Stell Newman's 1968 report on early fishing and farming on Hawaii Island in 1778 (Newman, 1968). It is from this document, that the general description of historical fisheries in Hawaii is obtained, as well as some information on the fisheries and settlement patterns in this particular area of Hawaii. ~ To describe the nature of fisheries in Hawaii, Newman (1968) describes the basic geography of the ocean waters in the following manner: Data presented in Chapter 111 indicate that the maximum depth to which the Hawaiians were able to fish was 1,200 feet (350 meters) below the surface; the water area of the Q Hawaiian Lslands of depths less than this figure is extremely limited. An example of this may be seen in Map 14 where the 1,200 foot (350 meter) underwater contour is plotted for Hawaii Island. There are only about 500 square miles (800 square kilometers) of inshore waters surrounding Hawaii Island less than 600 feet (200 meters) in depth (Bryan 1954:4). !f the slope from the 600 feet to the 1,200 foot contour is about the same ~ as from 0 to 600 feet the maximum ocean area usable for sub-surface angling around Hawaii Island is roughly 1,000 square miles (1,600 square kilometers). The actual area exploited by native fishermen would undoubtedly have been greatly less because of bottom conditions, water currents, swell systems, and inadequate habitat conditions to support the types of marine life normally exploited by the Hawaiians. (Newman, 1968:. 11-12) Newman described the marine biota as follows: the effect of this geological feature on the marine biota is seen in the division of the waters surrounding the Hawaiian Lslands into three basic habitat types: the pelagic, O benthic, and inshore or reef area, each with its characteristic fauna. The pelagic habitat, quite uniform in temperature and salinity, ranges from the surface to perhaps 600 feet (200 meters) in depth and is located in the open sea offshore from the Islands (Gosline and Brock 1965: 6). Comparatively few species of fish are found in the pelagic ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 13 of I22 habitat and those exploited by the Hawaiian were surface feeding carnivores such as malolo, 'ahi, aku, ono, mahimahi, and kaku. There is also an inshore pelagic (neriric) zone, defined by Gosline and Brock (1965:7) as the upper water layers where the total depth is less than 600 feet (200 meters) in depth. In this subzone are often found the usual pelagic species as well as others restricted to this zone, such as the akule, 'opelu and kawakawa. The benthic, or bottom habitat, is the sea floor at depths from 180 to 900 feet (50 to 300 meters) in which the fish fauna is only poorly known (Gosline and Brock 1965:7). The inshore or reef habitat extends from the above surface splash and surge pools to a depth of about 180 feet (50 meters) (Gosline and Brock 1965.•5). As noted above, this area is quite limited in extent in the Hawaiian Lslands because of the steepness of the underwater base. Only in embayed areas such as Kaneohe Bay on Oahu does the horizontal extent of the zone exceed one-half mile (0.8 kilometers). The largest marine biomasss (total living weight) is found in this inshore habitat and it was the habitat most extensively exploited by Hawaiians, as will be shown in Chapter ILI. (Newman, 1968: 12). Specifically relating to the predominance of fishing on the leeward side of Hawaii Island, Newman notes that: Historical studies also show that most fishing tended to take place along the leeward coastlines although this may have also been due, in part, to the difficulries of fishing the inshore waters of the windward shores. For example little fishing was described by Ellis (1963) for the windward coastline of Hawaii Island in 1823 although fishing was very important in leeward areas. (Newman, 1968: 15). In looking at the information for the late eighteenth century, Newman notes that "Careful research through the journals of Cook, Clerke, King, Anderson, Samwell, Burney, Williamson, and Edgar, however, yielded only scant materials on sea exploitation. (Newman, 1968: 52). Early nineteenth century fishing techniques were described in the diary of Archibald Campbell, who observed fishing by net, hook and line and poisoning during his stay on Oahu during 1809 and 1810. Campbell notes that the hooks were made of pear] or turtle shell and that iron trade fishhooks were coming into general use. "The only type of hook and line fishing mentioned was trolling with the pa type lure for aku, `ahi and mahimahi. Campbell noted that the fish lines were made of olona, spun into lines by rolling the fibers between the hand and thigh." (Newman, 1968: 50). Newman (1968) recounts John Papa Ii's description of early nineteenth century fishing in Hawaii. Ii was born in 1800 "...and served in the Kamehameha I household under Liholiho, the son of Kamehameha I. He describes this account: Kamehameha was often seen fishing with his fishermen in the deep ocean, where the sea was shallow, and where fish-poison plants were used. He took care of the canoe paddlers who went out for aku fish, bringing in supplies from the other islands for them and sent ships to and fro fetching nets, lines, olona fibers and other things (p. 69 - Ii in Newman, p. 51) Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 14 of 122 0 Kamakau, who was born in 1815, and was a native historian about the eazlier period of the life of Kamehameha I. He described fishing techniques during this early nineteenth century period as: Ci There were deep sea nets for fishing (aumaiewa), shallow sea nets for fishing (laulele), nets for fishing by diving ('upena-lu `u), fishing by enticing into the net by means of a Brick with a strong odor (lawai `a melomelo), aku trolling with mother-of--pearl hooks (lawai `a- a-hi-aku), ahi trolling with hook and line (hi- `ahi), net fishing from flying fish (hano- malolo), trolling for kahala fish with hook and line (hi-kahala), and several other kinds. ~ (p. 176 Kamakau in Newman, p. 51) Malo, Ii, and Kamakau "...tend to substantiate one another and depict the use of seine /bag net combinations, bag nets used alone, melomelo bait sticks, fish poisoning, handheld diver's nets, trolling for aku with the pa lure as well as hook and line fishing for `ahi and kahala" (Newman, p. 51). ~ The quantitative data from John Cobb for the Hawaii Island 1900 commercial fishery are summarized here: U` 10 I Ci Figure 5 Hawaii Island Commercial Catch : 19UU Technique Poundaee Percent Hook and line 995,952 78.3 Seine/Bag nets 65,893 5.1 Gill nets 60,042 4.7 Cast nets 49,852 3.9 Bag Nets only 49,000 3.8 Basket Traps 4,737 .3 Snares 600 .04 Spears 18,246 1.4 Hands 26,579 2.0 TOTAL 1,270,901 100 (rounded) (Cobb 1902 in Newman, 1968: 42) Newman (1968) notes that ~ Middle nineteenth century sea exploitation has been well and authoritatively described by A.D. Kahaulelio in the Hawaiian-language newspaper, Ka Nupepa Ku'oko `a . These articles have since been translated by Mary Pukui and the translation manuscript is to be found in the Bishop Museum Library (Kahaulelio, 1902)...It will be seen that many of the techniques described by Beckley and Cobb from the late nineteenth century are also ~ described by Kahaulelio for this earlier period. (Newman, 1968: 42-43). The techniques described by Kahaulelio included spearing, hand collection, basket traps, nets and hook and line. Spearing, hand collection and basket traps "were described by Kahaulelio in terms quite similar to those of the late nineteenth century authors, making it certain that the same general techniques O were in use throughout these two time periods." (Newman, 1968: 43) d Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 15 of 122 4 4 Brief general history of konohiki rights and the ahugua`a Konohiki fishing rights were part of the ancient Hawaiian system of land and ocean management. Hawaiian communities depended on the sea for protein to support themselves. Under the feudal system of the time, the land and its adjacent sea were claimed by the king, who granted certain lands to high chiefs, who in turn granted certain places to lesser chiefs, in return for a portion of the products of the land and sea, as well as military support. (Kosaki, 1954: 1) Traditional Hawaiian land management practices divided the islands into large districts called moku, governed by a high chief. Each moku was divided into ahupua`a, which was governed by lesser chiefs. These ahupua`a were strips of land from the mountain to the sea, and included the ocean waters adjacent to the ahupua`a. The ahupua`a included mauka areas that could be cultivated for food, forests that were the source of wood, plant products, birds, and other animals, and the nearshore ocean that were the primary source of protein for the Hawaiian people. Each ahupua`a was managed by a konohiki, designated by the chief of the ahupua`a. The konohiki was responsible for regulating the harvesting of fish and other marine life, the cultivation of food and other useful plants, and the harvest of products from the mauka forests. Over time, "konohiki fishing rights" also became to mean the "chief's or privately owned fisheries." (Kosaki 1954: 1) It was in 1839 that the first official recognition of konohiki fishing rights was made by Kamehameha III when he passed "An Act to Regulate Taxes," which became Chapter III of the Laws of 1840, and contained a section entitled "Of free and prohibited fishing grounds," which read in part: His Majesty the King hereby takes the fishing grounds from those who now possess them from Hawaii to Kauai, and gives one portion of them to the common people, another portion to the landlords, and a portion he reserves to himself. These are the fishing grounds which His Majesty the King takes and gives to the people; the fishing grounds without coral reef, viz: the Kilohe'e grounds, the Luhe `e ground, the Malolo ground, together with the ocean beyond. But the fishing grounds from the coral reef to the sea beach are for the landlords and for the tenants of their several lands, but not for others. (Chapter III, Section 8, of Laws of 1840). (in Kosaki, 1954: 1-2). The konohiki was given the right to regulate fishing in the waters adjoining his ahupua`a "from the beach at low watermark to the edge of the reefs and, where there was no reef, to one mile seaward of the beach" (Murakami in MacKenzie (Ed) 1991: 175). The other grounds outside the coral reefs are to open to all -the Kilohe`e ground (area where squid was spotted and caught using a hook and line), the Luhe`e ground (area where squid were too deep to be seen but were caught with cowry shell lures), the Malolo (flying fish) ground, together with the ocean beyond. In addition, the king kept for himself certain species from the fishing grounds seaward of the reefs. (Murakami in MacKenzie (Ed) 1991: 174) In 1845 began the Great Mahele, which redistributed and privatized land all through the islands. After the Great Mahele, and the change of Hawaii's land system, persons who became owners of land within an ahupua`a were treated as tenants entitled to rights in the fishery of the ahupua`a . The same rights were enjoyed by their lessees and renters. All of this was accommodated under the premise that the word "tenant" had been broadened, becoming almost synonymous with the word "occupant," and including any bona fide resident of the land (Haalelea v. Montgomery, 2 Haw. 62 (1858); Hatton v. Piopio, 6 Haw. 334 (1882); Smith v. Laamea, 29 Haw. 750 (1927) in Meller, 1985: 6) Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 16 of 122 Q Meller notes that During the division of lands at the time of the GreatMahele, title to konohiki fisheries ~ normally was not part of awards made by the Land Commission. "The Land Commission did not decide on the question of...fisheries, except as incidentally to its other duties. (Jones v. MeelS 2 Jawy. 9 (1857), Judd v. Kuanalewa, 6 Haw. 329 (1882),; Bishop v. Mahiko, 35 Haw- 608 (1940); Chinen, supra, p. 13, note 10 in Meller, 1985: 8). O There were some minor changes when the law was redrafted in 1841 and 1845. In 1851, a major revision of the law was passed "which unequivocally granted all fishing grounds pertaining to any Government land or otherwise belonging to the Government to the people for the free and equal use of all persons." (Kosaki, 1954: 2). d In 1859, the Hawaii Legislature passed the Civi] Code of 1859, and codified laws pertaining to konohiki fishing rights in sections 387 and 395. (Kosaki, 1954: 2) Kosaki notes that O As evolved through the years, the main features of konohiki fishing rights are as follows: 1. Certain areas of the sea, from the reefs and, where there happen to be no reefs, from the distance of one geographical mile seaward to the beach at low watermark, are the private fisheries of the konohikis. 2. Within these private ocean fisheries, fishing is restricted to the konohikis and the ~ hoa`ainas, or tenants of the lands (ahupua`a) to which the fisheries were originally attached. 3. The konohikis can regulate the fishing within the fisheries by one of the following two methds: (a) By setting aside or placing a tabu on one specific type offish for their exclusive use; Q or (b) After consultation with tenants, by prohibiting fishing during certain months of the year and, during the fishing season, to exact from each tenant one-third part of all the fishes caught in the fishery. (Kosaki, 1954: 3-4)" O As presented in the analyses by Kosaki (1954), Meller (1984) and Maly (2003), through this period of the Great Mahele to the 1893 revolution and Hawaii Organic Act in 1900, konohiki fishing rights went through a process of being formally recognized, and subsequently limited in scope and number. The 1900 Hawaii Organic Act contained specific sections relating to fisheries, Section 95 and Section 96. They state: O Sec. 95. Repeal of laws conferring exclusive fishing rights. That all laws of the Republic of Hawaii which confer exclusive fishing rights upon any person or person are hereby repealed, and all fisheries in the sea waters of the Territory of Hawaii not included in any fish pond or artificial enclosure shall be free to all citizens of the United States, subject, Q however, to vested rights; but no such vested right shall be valid after three years from the taking effect of this Act unless established as hereinafter provided. ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquacultare Project p. 17 of 122 Sec. 96. Proceedings for opening fisheries to citizens. That any person who claims a private right to any such fishery shall, within two years after the taking effect of this Act, file his petition in a circuit court of the Territory of Hawaii, setting forth his claim to such fishing right, service of which petition shall be made upon the attorney-general, who shall conduct the case for the Territory, and such case shall be conducted as au ordinary action at law. That if such fishing right be established the attorney general of the Territory of Hawaii may proceed, iu such manner as may be provided by law for the condemnation of property for public use, to condemn such private right of fishing to the use of the citizens of the United Stater upon making just compensation, which compensation, when [awfully ascertained, shall be paid out of any money in the treasury of the Territory of Hawaii not otherwise appropriated. (Kosaki, 1954: 4) Kosaki (1954) noted that: Contained in the above sections are these salient points: 1. The intent of Congress to destroy all private fishing rights and to open the fishing areas to all citizens. 2. The registration and adjudication of all private fisheries within the two year period C following the enactment of the Organic Act. 3. The condemnation of such registered fisheries by the Attorney General, and upon payment of just compensation, t12e opening up of such areas to public use. (Ibid) The U,.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the intent of Congress in this regard when it stated in re Fukunaga, Q (16 Haw. 306, 1904) that, "The intent of Congress is clear to destroy, so far as it is in its power to do so, all private rights of fishery and to throw open the fisheries to the people." At they time of the annexation of Hawaii, it could not be accurately determined how many private fisheries existed in the Territory (Bishop v. Mahiko, 35 Haw. 608 (1940) in Kosaki, 1954: 9). Of the estimated 300 to 400 private fisheries, about 100 were registered (Kosaki, p. 9). Despite the fact that the 1873 and 1878 Boundary Review Commission records noted konohiki fishing rightsGfor Ki`iokalani ahupua`a, Puanui ahupua`a, and Kehena ahupua`a, a review of copies of records compiled by the office of the Territorial Surveyor of all registered fisheries provided in Kosaki (1954) shows that no exclusive fisheries were registered in this area of North Kohala. If the fishery was not registered, then, according to Bishop. v. Mahiko, the right became invalid. (Kosaki 1954). Therefore, it is assumed that there are no konohiki fishing rights in the ocean area adjacent to the Proposed Action site. Even the newspapers of the time confirmed the public perception of the Bishop v. Mahiko decision in an ~ article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin of September 7, 1940, which stated: "Public right to the use of 262 sea fisheries in various parts of the Territory was established in an opinion by the supreme court...", and further: "It was held that the ]aw requiring registration of the lands was not unconstitutional and that owners who failed to register within the required time forfeited the fisheries to the public." (Kosaki, 1954: `11) ~ Maly and Maly (2003) noted the transition during this time from the cultural subsistence fishing system with traditional values for fisheries to a commercial system with economic value of fisheries. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 18 of 122 ~ 0 What evolved in Hawaii under western influence through the 1800s, and matured following the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, was ~ the development of a commercial fishing industry, involving significant trading centers and a market economy. The industry and growing number of urban consumers had little interest in the myriad traditional values - such as spiritual, cultural, familial, and ecological -fish and aquatic resources. (Maly 2003: ix) O Maly and Maly continue: In the transition from a cultural subsistence-based system to the commercial economy, fish and other harvestable marine organisms went ~ from being perceived and valued in a complex way that was embedded in nature and culture -one fostered through long-term stewardship - to fish as primarily being a commodity or simply food items. In the present day, the broad range of aquatic resources are no longer perceived as organisms irrevocably connected to the complex web of life, spanning water, land, air and culture. (Ibid.) O Nonetheless, in face of these changes in modern times, Maly and Maly emphasize that 10 ~~ ~d O O we observe that one theme associated with fishing is consistent in oral history interviews with elder native Hawaiian fisher-people, and is also shared by other elder kama'kina who Learned fishing the "Hawaiian" way. It is that fishing and collection of marine resources requires caring for, and giving back, as a part of the taking. This manner of cultural subsistence maybe summarized as "Hdnai a 'ai" (To care for and eat from). In the Hawaiian cultural context, subsistence was the traditional way of life, reflected in the relationship shared between nature anti the ktanaka (people). Subsistence is multi faceted, including: intimate knowledge of the natural resources (from mountains to ocean depths); spiritual attributes; responsibility; and a physical relationship (Maly and Maly 2003: xi) ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 19 of 122 C 4.5 The Cultural Setting In the Region of Influence The Region of Influence for cultural resources includes all harbor structures and facilities utilized by the proposed operation, and the proposed leased ocean area for the open ocean aquaculture operation. Document reseazch and oral history interviews have not provided any oral tradition, legend, or cultural activity or Traditional Cultural Properties or Area of Traditional Importance associated with the preferred ocean lease site in Kohala off Malae Point in particular. There are no resources within the ROI that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NPS 2008). Interviews with kupuna fishermen noted, and bathymetric charts confirm, that there is no underwater feature in the area of the ocean lease site that would serve to attract fish (Akau 2008, La`au 2008). Interviews with fishermen have indicated that the ocean lease waters were probably used for transit, trolling from nearshore to offshore locations. But, the site is not a specifically targeted area for the fisheries in the area, which tend to concentrate within'/z mile from shore for `opelu and 1 to 1-1/2 miles from shore for trolling pazallel to the shoreline for ono and mahi. The site is 2.6 nm offshore in an area that it is not used for trolling, net fishing, `opelu fishing, bottom fishing, or other cultural practice. The proposed site is in waters of 220 fathoms, which aze deeper than the deepest bottom fishing depth of 150-170 fathoms cited in interviews (Cambra 2008 and Fukuyama 2008), which will be discussed in the next section about the ocean area adjacent to the proposed ocean lease site. 4 6 The Cultural Settin¢ in the Larger ocean azea surrounding the Region of Influence, including nearby adjacent coastal waters Looking at the azea azound the ocean lease site, interviewees describe that the primary cultural activity and resource in the general area is fishing. Fishermen as cultural practitioners utilize coastal fisheries all the way from Kawaihae to Mahukona -and with good weather, all the way to Polulu. Cultural activities today aze a modern reflection of the same cultural activities of ancient times, including fishing in the coastal waters, and from the shoreline. In the coastal ocean area within 1-1/2 to 2 miles from shore in this Kohala area, the ocean is well used for cultural practices of shore fishing, trolling, `opelu fishing, bottom fishing, gathering and camping by native Hawaiian and kama`aina who have been associated with the land for many generations. Some kupuna remember stories of the land from their own lifetime of more than eighty years, and also tell stories heard from their grandparents of a time more than a hundred years ago (Akau 2008, La`au 2008, Ho`opai 2008). Interviews with kupuna fishermen confirmed that in this part of the ocean, the cultural resources and practices of trolling, `opelu fishing, and shoreline harvesting were all concentrated in coastal waters within 1 to 1-1/2 miles from the shoreline, or about two miles from the ocean lease site. (Akau 2008, La`au 2008, Ho`opai 2008, Richards 2008). Bottom fishing extended out to an area about one mile from the proposed ocean lease site (Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). Along this stretch of shoreline,there aze numerous `opelu ko`a located close to the coastline (La`au 2008, Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008), which are maintained by fishermen whose families have fished `opelu for generations. `Opelu ko`a are well known to the master fishermen, who tend these ko`a to prepaze the fish for harvest during its proper season. Interviewees noted that there were `opelu ko`a fishing grounds all along this pazt of the coast, within ~/z mile from shore at locations close to Waiakailio Bay, all along the Red Hill (Pu`u Ulaula) azea to Black Point (Malae Point), and Waiwaionu Bay at Puanui, and beyond to Keaweula Bay all the way to Mahukona (Akau 2008, La`au 2008, Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008). Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 20 of 122 0 In addition to the `opelu, fishermen would also troll along the 30 - 40 fathom contour for ono, or other target species (Akau 2008, La`au 2008, Ho`opai 2008, Richards 2008, Fukuyama 2008). Fishermen would also fish for aku, during its proper season. And fishermen would also tazget onaga and other p bottom fish (La`au 2008, Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008) along the coastline between Kawaihae to Black Point out to 150 fathoms (Fukuyama 2008) or 170 fathoms (Cambra 2008), which is about one mile from the proposed lease site (Fukuyama 2008), but still considered close (Fukuyama 2008 and Cambra 2008). Bottom fishermen north of Black Point to Mahukona targeted opakapaka at 85 fathoms (Cambra 2008 and Fukuyama 2008). O These `opelu ko `a and bottom fish fishing grounds are very important natural and cultural resources and could be considered as an area of traditional importance. The `opelu ko`a are located over two miles away from the proposed ocean lease site. The bottom fish grounds are about one mile away. O Hawaiian fishermen also ventured far offshore to catch fish (Newman 1968, Manu 1992, Maly 2003), so it is certainly possible the waters were used by Hawaiians to transit from the nearshore fishing areas to the offshore fishing area (Fukuyama 2008). However, interviewees noted the waters further offshore from Malae Point start to be affected by the Alenuihaha Channel with its strong winds and currents. They describe that offshore fishing was not favored in that area, and that fishermen tended to go offshore in the aeeas further south, off Kawaihae and North Kona aeeas (Fukuyama 2008, La`au 2008). O Historic remains on the shoreline azea include many canoe hale, which indicate the large number of canoes used by those living in the general area in the past. In prehistoric and historic times, canoes traveling from Maui and Oahu to the island of Hawaii and its leewazd settlements may have passed through this general area. Larger population centers were located further to the north at the large fishing Q village at Lapakahi, and further to the south at Kawaihae. Travel along the coastal waters were probably following a course set close the shoreline to avoid the wind that is predominant in offshore waters. 4 7 The Cultural Setting in the Coastal land area adjacent to the ocean lease area: To better appreciate the cultural landscape within which the ocean ]ease site is located, this analysis goes Q beyond the specified Region of Influence of the ocean lease site and the Kawaihae Harbor areas involved in the operation of the aquaculture farm, to include the cultural history of the land on the shore adjacent to the preferred site in North Kohala known as Pu`u Ulaula was researched to identify patterns of cultural activity, and identify native Hawaiian families and other kama`aina with historical associations with the land and adjacent sea. This helped to describe the cultural landscape of the region ~ offshore which the ocean lease site is located. While these ocean waters themselves are not specifically tazgeted for fishing purposes or other cultural practices, these ocean waters exist in the cultural context of the coastal lands adjacent to them. The coastal area due west of the ocean lease site is known as Pu `u Ulaula, or Red Hill. It is generally bounded on the north by Malae Point, (commonly known as Black Point) to Pahinahina ahupua`a in the ~ south. From north to south, these nine ahupua`a include Ki`iokalani, Kaihooa, Pohakulu, Ahulula, Kokio, Kalala ls`, Kalala 2"d, Makiloa, and Pahinahina. Legendary references to Western leewazd Kohala, known as Kohala Waho are found in He Moolelo no Makalei, which was published in Ka Hoku O Hawaii from January 31 to August 31, 1928 and describes 4 a story set in the l l~h century CE about the creation of the most famous caves of the North Kona region (Ke ana watt o Makalei). ~ Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 2] of 122 The moo]elo includes information about the practices and traditional knowledge of Kohala Waho, as translated by Maly (Maly 2005 in UH-DURP 2005) including: Po~a 'aha (a type of braided fiber) was used as a racing baton. Fishing for ~ malolo (flying fish). Fishing was regulated by season, malolo seasons ended when ahi (yellow fin tuna) began. Ahi fishing information: Used six ka'au (240') of Mona (woven mulberry fiber), bailers, water gourds, 'ai pa'a (poi bundles), paka (sinker lines). Ko'a (proscribed fishing area) accessed using triangulation (kaulana). 'Opelu is used as bait. Canoes used to fish for ahi had woven sails E (palaumoena) and wooden masts (kia). Knkui nut was chewed then spit on the water to enable fishermen to see the bottom. To fish the 'Awini ko'a, with its Kohalapehu winds, one had to sail all the way to Hana Maui to turn around. Other winds used were the Malani and Oninipua (also known as the Kuakualaeo). Ahi was given, traded, offered as sacrifice to ancestors and cordage, as well as cut up and dried, as well as given to villagers. The winds off of the ocean of ~ Honopue were dangerous to fishermen. (Maly 2005 in DURP 2005). This moolelo describes the relationship between leeward and windward Kohala, translated in Maly ((2005) in UH-DURP (2005)) as follows: ~ D Leeward (Kohala Waho) was known for its expert fishermen. Ahi fishing was the major work of the leeward coast, Kohala was noted for its abundance. Ahi was said to control the "moku, kalana, the ahupua'a, the ko'ele" of Kohala Waho, was sought after in all six districts of the island of Hawaii. It was understood that Aumakua Gawa'ia and Ku'ula (ancestral fishing deities) observe fishermen to E~ make sure proper protocol is followed: to give away fish freely to all those who assist in the catching: canoe carriers, elder fishermen, cordage makers, etc. Windward Kohala (Kohala Loko) people were known to be agricultural i specialists. Exchange between the two was important: in the story, Makalei's fishing skill brought an abundance offish, which were traded with farmers from p Halawa, Makapala, Niuli~i, Waiapuka, Pololu, and Honokane. Chiefly names listed corroborate the Mamiki article inference that place names in Kohala Waho are derived from chiefs: Makalei meets chiefs named Puakea, Pu'uonale and ~ Kokoiki on his journey to Kohala Waho, Kapa'au was the name of a racer (kukini). Kohala was noted to have four divisions, one of which was said to be the O 'ilima land zone of the 'Apa'apa a wind (mentioned in Makalei's pu'a chant). Makalei competed against Kapa'au, the champion of Kukuipahi (Chief of Kohala Loko) for the control of Kohala Waho. Place names in the North Kohala area are described in this moolelo: O In Kohala Loko, in the uplands of Pu'uepa, was mentioned to be a center for chiefly sports. Associated with this district was a kahua le'ale'a (contest area), the playing of ke'a pua (sugar cane tassel stems), puu noa (a hide and guess game played with rocks and kapa bundles), and racing, which seems to have been an ~ ~~ important game for the chiefs. Place names and land uses in Kohala Waho named included: Kahei, which had mo'aina (cultivate dry land parcels), 'ilina Cultural LmpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 22 of 122 ~ 0 wai'ole (dry waterless lands), hono (sheltered areas) and 'uala pu'e (sweet potato mounds) (Maly 2005 in UH-DURP 2005) ~ Maly provides a translation of what the moolelo describes as ties between natural phenomena and traditional knowledge for the North Kohala area as: Star constellations were used (Pleiades, here mentioned as Huhui, not Makali'i) to determine when to set sail on the fishing canoes, for during the high point of O the rising of Huhui, "the wind blows with frequent lulls. " The 'Apa~apa'a winds cause waves to break in white ridges, forcing one to land at Ha'ena. The ~Awini Ko'a was accessed only when the "kohalapehu" wind was not blowing for it created unusually large waves, the size of houses. The month of Kohalapehu wind was Hilina during raining season. This wind was thus known for it pelted ~ the natives and destroyed canoes. The time to catch ahi was in the months of Kaulua and Nana: it said that during this time the water is calm, birds take flight a (to show where the schools are), uhu are out in abundance near the cliffside. More traditional knowledge of the months listed as it relates to fishing conditions in Kohala Waho.• Kaulua was said to have had temperamental weather, rain and sun intermixed, the month of Ikuwa is a time of thunder; Nana is the time when ~ there is no storms, when the ocean is calm. This is the ideal time to fish. " (Maly 2005 in UH-DURP 2005) Another legend Ka`ao Ho`oniua Pu`uwai no Ka-Milo, serialized in the Hawaiian language newspaper from 1914 to 1917, was set in the 12`~ - 13`~ century. This is translated in outline form in a report by Maly (Maly undated in UH-DURP 2005), which states that Kohala waho had a large population extending from the sea to upland koai'e and mamane forests, with awa, sugarcane, banana plantations in the uplands and fishing on the coasts. Kohala was ruled by two chiefs during this time: Kapa'au- O iki-a-Kalana and Hikapola. Hika often organized sporting events. The names of the characters in this story coincide with place names of Kohala waho including Hikapoloa (Alii nui of Kohala waho), 'Upolu (pukaua or general), Honoipu ('alapa or competitor in athletic contests), Ho'ea (kukini or runner), Puakea (koa or warrior), Kukuipahu (wife of Hikapoloa), Ha'ena, Awalua, Kapa'a Kaipuha'a, p and Puu'epa (olohe or lua warriors and lesser chiefs), Kahua and Kai'opae (Chiefs and guardians of Lamaloloa), Lamaloloa (Master competitor and fighter for Hikapoloa), and Kepaka'ili'ula (child of Hikapoloa and Kukuipahu) (Maly, undated) in UH-DURP 2005. ~ A Preliminary Chronology of North Kohala in the UH DURP North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Landscape Study (2005) provides a description of the legendary past related to this area taken from Tomonari-Tuggle 1988: 8-9): Papa and Wakea are considered the residence of Oakea and Opapa (Wakea and ~ Papa)... the god and goddess who made Hawaii and all the others of this group of islands (in Damon 1927: 54). Pa'ao is credited with the establishment of a new political and religious order, which set severe sanctions for religious observance emphasizing the separation of chief and commoner. Pa'ao brought with him Pili- ~ Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 23 of 122 Kaaiea, a Tahitian chief, to rejuvenate the royal Ali'i line This line of chiefs, from which the Kamehameha dynasty emerged is one of the three lines of descent through which Hawaiian ali'i traced their genealogies; the other two are the 'Ulu and Nana'ulu lines (Malo 1951: 6). Pa'ao is also credited with the construction of the Mo'okini Heiau atPu'uepa. (DURP 2005). In the. West Kohala area, initial settlement occurred in approximately 800 - 1000 CE. There is historical evidence of small fishing settlements along the shoreline of this region consisting of house sites, canoe hale, 'small gardens, walls, all connected by a coastal trail. (Bonk 1968 and Newman 1968). Fresh watery was apparently very limited, but could be found in springs, water caves, dew fall and catchment to irrigate gardens. These Fishing villages likely focused daily life on the ocean and used the ocean neaz here for fishing purposes. Significant settlement begins approximately 1400 through 1850 including permanent and temporazy habitations, burials, heiau, trails, and holua. (Maly undated in UH-DURP 2005) A Preliminazy Chronology of North Kohala in the UH DURP North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Landscape Study (2005) provides a description of early settlement for this area: Initial utilization, probably by a small founder population, is characterized by a short-term or transient occupation mainly near richer subsistence resources, C primarily along the coast. Dispersed and spaced pattern of isolated coastal communities as a result of exploiting the best-unoccupied environments. It is suggested that initial settlements occurred in maximum resource zones such as the kula gulches. A description of the leeward coast is given for this time by Rosendahl (1972: 445).• "...from sea level to about 1300 feet in elevation (10 to 0 40" annual rainfall), the setting was an arid to semi-arid rocky slope dominated by pill grass... to the virtual exclusion of most other flora species. The upper portion of Lapakahi, extending up to about 1800 feet, probably corresponded to the lower limits of an open, mixed dryland forest, which dominated the further mauka leeward slopes of the Kohala Mountains. Narrow fingers of forest would p have extended further makai, below the general forest limits, in the relatively moister gulches and gully channels (cited in Tomonari-Tuggle: 12-13). A sequence of occupation for the leeward coast of Nordt Kohala has been offered by Tuggle and Griffin (1973: 61, 63): O Between c. AD 1450-1500 two major events occurred: an expansion in the upland area and the development of dryland agriculture; and construction of the "Great Wall" and adjacent platforms in the hamlet of Koaie. These events were interpreted as indicators of the development of Gapakahi as a distint social and political unit with distinct social classes and consolidated power. By c. AD 1600, O settlement was expanding along the coast in conjunction with intensification of the upland field systems. Tuggle and Griffen (1973: 63) attribute the expansion of settlement, and the intensification of marine resource exploitation and upland agriculture, to the demand of a stratified social system. By AD 1778, resource production had reached its peak and the population began to decrease. Much of O the upland agricultural system and coastal habitations outside the hamlet were abandoned by the early 1800s. ((IH-DURP 2005) Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aguaculture Project p. 24 of 122 ~ 0 Kirch (1994) says that as Hawaiians left the windward valleys and moved to more arable lands, these field systems became of primary importance. The Kohala field system developed over about a 350-year period, from A.D. 1450 -1800, and was followed by a rapid collapse and abandonment after European p contact (Kirch 1994). In his cultural study of the Pu`u o Umi Natural Area Reserve and the Kohala-Hamakua mountain lands, Maly (2004) describes that by 800 - 1000 AD, O The popularion began expanding to the kona (leeward) side and more remote regions (Gordy 2000: 130), Kirch (1979) reported that by about AD 1200, there were small coastal settlements at various areas along the western shore line of Hawaii for example, the Waimea lands of Anaehoomalu, Kalahuipuaa and Puako and Kawaihae (Kirch 1979: 198). These leeward coastal lands provided the O nearshore and deep sea fishery resources necessary for the families of the larger Waimea region. Ln this system, the nearshore communities shred extended familial relations with those of the Waimea uplands. (Maly 2004: 4) Maly continues: ~ By the ISOOs and 1600s, residency in the uplands was becoming permanent, and there was an increasing separation of royal class from commoners. During the latter part of this period, the population stabilized and a system of land management was established as a political and socioeconomic factor (see Kamakau 1961; Ellis 1963, Handy, Handy and Pukui 1972; Tomonari-Tuggle O 1985 and Gordy 2000) (Maly 2004: 4) and In the generations that followed initial settlement, the Hawaiians developed a O sophisticated system of land use and resource management. By the time Umi-a- Liloa rose to rule the island of Hawaii abou t1525, the island (moku-puni) was divided into six districts or moku-o-loko. Kohala extending from the slopes of Mauna Kea in the south ,across the Kohala Mountains, and to (Ipolu Point in the north, is one of those major districts (Maly 2004.•5) ~ The large districts like Kohala and subregions (`okana and kalana) were further divided into political regions and manageable units of land. These smaller divisions or units of land were tended to by the maka`ainana (people of the land) (see Malo 1951: 63-67). Of all the land divisions, perhaps the most significant management unit throughout the islands was the ahupua'a. (Maly 2004:5) O There is historical evidence of small fishing settlements along the shoreline of this Pu`u Ulaula region consisting of house sites, canoe hale, small gardens, walls, all connected by a coastal trail. (Bonk 1968, Newman 1968, Clark 1986). Fresh water was apparently very limited. These fishing villages likely focused daily life on the ocean and used the ocean near here for fishing purposes. Newman (1968) O describes fishing activities in general for Hawaii in this precontact time with the primary focus of fishing using the ocean area within'/z mile from shore for different types offish, along with trolling further offshore. A further discussion on fishing techniques in historical times is included below. O Cultural ImpactAssessment for Kawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 25 of 122 This is a coastal azea with historic remains indicating that it was inhabited with small gatherings of houses, yards, and canoe houses in various embayments along the coast. More people were living mauka than on the makai lands (Ellis, 1963, Clark 1986). Clazk (1986) describes this as a dual settlement pattern with more settlement mauka in the "kula" area, and spazse coastal settlements. Along the shoreline is a section of the Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail, that connects ancient and modern trails along the shoreline and mauka-makai. The Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail recognizes the significance of the coastal trail and its comdor as a cultural resource that shaped the Hawaiian culture. While the Pu`u Ulaula area of North Kohala is included in the designated Trail system, it is outside the priority area for implementing the 15 year planning period for all alternatives in their recent Draft Comprehensive Manaeement Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (AKNHT- NPS 2007, p. 5) Maps in this draft plan showing the North Kohala region of the Trail note that the land in the Pu`u Ulaula area is government owned land, except for Ki`iokalani. The map names the area "Kahua Ranch, Ponoholo Ranch (Malae Point), and indicates there was a possible lateral trail along this coastline (AKNHT - NPS, 2007, p. 99). Bill Bonk did an archeological survey of the coastline from an area north of Kawaihae to Mahukona in 1968. His map associated with this study is included above in Figure 3. In describing the azea of Pu`u Ulaula, Bonk describes two major bays in the area with evidence of more houses -one at Waiakailio Bay (at the southern end of the Pu`u Ulaula region of coast), and another bay to the north, which was probably Waiwaionu Bay at Puaiki and Puanui ahupua`a. Waiakailio Bay undoubtedly was an important settlement in the prehistoric as well as historic period. Prehistoric lwuse sites, canoe sheds and other remains of ancient man are interspersed with the remains of more recent activity. A windmill for pumping water from a well is still to be seen there together with the more recent foundation for a gasoline driven motor pump. This bay was undoubtedly a fairly important location for the shipping of cattle. (Bonk, p. 21) "Many of these small coastal indentations might readily have served as loading points for the shipping of cattle. " (Ibid. p. 31) Bonk also mentions numerous canoe sheds associated with house sites (Ibid.). He describes a typical house site in the area or Waiakailio Bay as Two cairns within the walled yard probably resulted from the piling up of rock in the clearing of the yard. The yard itself is divided into a lower and upper portion. This results from anorth-south wall through the yard. Probably the lower western section was used for planting. Two walled enclosures in the southwestern portion of the site, one I S feet by I S feet, the other ll feet by 13 feet may have been used as pens. Another platform at the far southwestern portion of the site probably was also used as a kalua. (Bonk, p. 28) Bonk does not mention anything at Malae Point itself. But, going further north, Bonk discovered a small bay with remains of several houses, burials, canoe houses. This was probably Waiwaionu Bay at the Puaiki and Puanui ahupua`a. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 26 of 122 to At a small bay north of Malae Point is an excellent landing place for canoes. Numerous stone walled structures and a few scattered rock graves are found in and around the bay. Pieces of coral are scattered on these graves. O There are numerous small inlets along this coast, many with small coral pebble beaches. This coastal region contains some very excellent fishing grounds. Uhu (Parrot fish) are especially numerous along this coast. Fishing certainly must have been one of the important reasons for settlement along this coast in prehistoric times. Little change has ~ been noted in this regard, for during our three week period in the field, not one day passed without seeing at [east one fishing boat offshore. Shore fishermen were also in abundance and the remains of their sojourns litter the coast with the cultural debris of our modern age. ~ Another reason for attracting temporary or permanent residents to this area was the protection afforded by the Kohala mountains to the coastal region of the southern part of north Kohala. I was told on more than one occasion that the area between Waiakailio Bay and the point south of Keaweula Bcry is normally well protected even during those periods when coastal areas to the north and south have heavy winds, resulting in choppy seas. The southern section of north Kohala coast however, normally is protected by the O trade winds. The sea is therefore relatively calm during a good portion of the year and as a result this is an area where small boats might normally heave to if threatened by high seas. " (pp. 36-37) Coastal dwellers harvested the sea in a variety of fisheries, and they grew plants using what limited fresh Q water they could obtain. And they depended on trade with the mauka dwellers who would trade meat and produce for fish (Ho`opai 2008, Akau 2008, and Clark 1986). The following excerpt is from Clark's 1986 treatise, "Waimea -Kawaihae: A Leeward Hawaii Settlement System" O Kohala Coastal Zone Beyond Kawaihae Kawaihae was the most important settlement along the Kohala coast but it obviously was not the only one. The environmental characteristics of the region to the north of Kawaihae differed from those to the south, and there was a corresponding difference in ~ the nature of the human occupation in the two areas. That difference is illustrated in the following review of the archaeological data on the CZ settlement in leeward Kohala to the north and to the south of Kawaihae. North of Kawaihae To the north of Kawaihae, the coast was environmentally similar -arid, rocky, grass- ~ covered and backed by the Kohala slopes. While historic sources tell us little about the settlements along the coast to the north we do know that some which existed in the Early Historic and Transformational Phases (and presumably in the prehistoric period as well) were Owawalua (Ellis 1969: p. 396), Hihiu (Ellis 1969: p. 396), Mahukona (Wilcox, in Damon 1950: p. 146), Koaie (Newman 1970; Tuggle and Griffin 1973), Kipi, and four Q other villages between there and Kawaihae (Ellis 1969: p. 288). As one moves further north from Kawaihae the separation between inland agricultural fields and the coast diminished, eventually disappearing near the north point of the island O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 27 of 122 where the leeward environment gives way to the windward. The populous and fruitful occupation of extreme northwest coastal Kohala provided a marked contrast to the southerly region of the district (Portlock 1789: 145; Menzies 1'920: 52; Vancouver 1967.• 11, 112; Kotzebue 1821; 295). Archaeological data on the coastal occupation north of Kawaihae comes primarily from the works of Soehren (1969), Bonk (1968), and Tomonari-Tuggle (1981), who conducted surveys along the coast, and the various participants in research at coastal Lapakahi (Pearson 1968; Newman 1970; Tuggle and Griffin 1973). North of Ward 1, yet still within the ahupua `a of Kawaihae 1, there are a few structures situated along the coast in comparative isolation. These appear to be principally shelters or possible Extended Domestic Chits (ED[Is). A small settlement was situated around the mouth of the prominent Honokoa Gulch, however, which is where Bonk's (1968) survey data begin. Included in this cluster are a few Extended Domestic Units (EDUs), one and perhaps more Permanent Domestic Units (PDUs), a canoe shed, a possible religious structure, a large salt pan, and some wall segments. Not far beyond this group are two other neighborhoods. The first consists of four Domestic Units (DUs), probably extended, and the second, a short distance away, is composed of an historic PDU, four probable EDUs, and a wall segment. From there to the Kawaihae 1 border and the boundary between North and South Kohala are only a couple of shelters and one or two isolated DUs (probably extended). Ln other words, there was little or no occupation in the area on either side of the district boundary suggesting that while the formal North- South division of Kohala dates to the historic period, it may mark a much older socio- political distinction of some kind. Soehren's, Bonk's, and Tomonari-Tuggle's surveys, which focused on CZl, indicate that beyond the ahupua `a of Kawaihae 1 the northern coast is dotted with a variety of structures, some isolated, others in small clusters, and still others in larger settlements. At this point, I cannot correlate the "villages" mentioned historically with specific archaeological settlements. None of the settlements compare with Kawaihae in size or importance. North of the district border the first settlement encountered is a small one situated at the mouth of Kapae Gulch (site 4157) (Bonk 1968). This is a small settlement where only one ward can be identified. Along with two small shelter caves at the side of the gulch, there appear to be five or six PDUs. Three of these have walls around house and "yard" but no non-indigenous artifacts suggesting occupation into, if not exclusively during, the historic period. The first sizable settlement north of the district border is at Waiaka'ilio Bay (site 4156). Perhaps as many as 25 to 30 DUs, most of which may have been permanent, were reported along with numerous shelters and recent encampments. Some of the DUs were historic but most seem likely to have been prehistoric. Also present were two canoe sheds, a possible heiau, and some scattered burial monuments. Bonk (1968: 21) concluded the "Waiaka'ilio Bay undoubtedly was an important settlement in the prehistoric as well as historic period. " Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 28 of 122 0 At the alrupua `a of Kalala there is a scattering of residential sites along the coast but no large clusters of houses. A small settlement may have been situated in the vicinity of Pu`u Ulaula but most of the DUs there seem most likely to have been historic, at least Q during their last phase of occupation (Bonk 1968:35). The [and units of Pohakuloa, Kaiho'oa, and Ki `iokalani again lack sizable coastal settlements. A small settlement of several DUs appears to have been present at a small bay just north of Malae Point. Most of the structures along this portion of the leeward ~ coast were probably R(ISs and perhaps EDUs which were occupied in order to exploit the good fishing grounds (Bonk 1968: 36-37). For Puanui and Kehena land units there are again scattered shelters and DUs. !. O A settlement of note was located at Keawanui Bay. It cousisted of at least two major canoe sheds, at least,four PDUs, numerous EDUs, and seven large salt pans (Bonk 1968: 38-40; Soehren 1969:23). Many more DUs would probably be revealed through intensive survey at this locale. Bonk (1968:38) described it as "a fairly significant settlement in prehistoric times. (Clark 1986, pp. 295-299) Ci The report continues its description of the coastal settlement patterns at Kaupalaoa, Makeanehu, Kaiholena, Paoo, Lamaloa, Kaipuhaa ane Lapakahi. Clark concludes by saying, have attempted to divide the sites at the settlement into CZI and CZ2 groupings and have then recalibrated the chronometeric dates available for each area (see Table 6.2). O Their results suggest a striking difference between the two subzones. The occupation span for CZI stretches from about AD 1250 to some time after 1825. For CZ 2 the occupation span is approximately AD 1600 to shortly after 1800. While the actual time differential in settlement of CZ 1 and CZ 2 may not be as great as indicated from these limited data, the evidence is very strong the CZI was indeed settled significantly prior to p CZ2 at Lapakahi. (Clark 1986, pp. 300) In his journal of 1823,.under the entry: "Kawaihae Back North Toward Mahukona by Thurston, William Ellis writes, "The coast was barren; the rocks volcanic; and Mr. Thurston was informed that the inhabitants of the plantations, about seven miles in the interior, were far more numerous than on the Cr shore. (Newman, p. 288). Newman notes: "This distance is erroneous for that would place them on the other side of the Kohala Mountains -probably more like 2-3 miles." (Newman, p. 250) All the land in the Pu `u Ulaula region, including the ahupua`a of Kaihooa (at Malae Point), Pohakulu, Ahulula, Kokio, Kalala ls`, Kalala 2"d, Makiloa, and Pahinahina were retained by Kamehameha I, and O were later transferred by King Kamehameha III in "An Act Relating to the Crown, Government, and Fort Lands, in 1848" to become the lands of the Hawaiian Government. After the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, the lands became part of the Territory of Hawaii. And, after statehood, the ]ands became part of the state of Hawaii. Contiguous and to the north of the Government lands in the Pahinahina lease is the ahupua`a of ~ Ki `iokalani, located at Malae Point. This ahupua`a was granted by King Kamehameha I to John Young, his trusted advisor (Cahill 1999), who in turn bequeathed it to his daughter, Fanny Kakelaokalani Young in a will he wrote in 1834 (Cahill 1999: 147). Fanny "Pane" Young was born of John Young and his second wife, Kaoanaeha, niece of Kamehameha I. While Hawaiian newspaper reports on July 14, ] 848, p Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 29 of 122 that the Ki`iokalani ahupua`a was granted to the government by Kamehameha III, and accepted in legislative Council on June 7, 1848 (Ka Elele, July 14, 1848), it was on December 13, 1878, that the Ki`iokalani ahupua`a was awazded to Fanny "Pane" Young under Royal Patent 7216, and finally under Land Court Award 8519-B Apana 2. Please see Appendix A for a copy of this Royal Patent. As pazt of the process stazted in the Great Mahele, in 1873 and 1878, the Boundayy Commission gathered information on the ahupua'a from informants to determine the disposition of the lands. The coastal region east closest to the Proposed Action site is Malae Point and the area around it. Malae Point is the boundary of two ahupua'a: Kaihooa and Ki iokalani. To the south of Malae Point are the ahupua'a of Pohakulu and Ahulula. Further to the south is the Pu'u Ulaula region including Kalala (1&2), Makiloa and Pahinahina. To the north of Malae Point is Waiwaionu Bay which includes Puaiki ahupua'a and Puanui ahupua'a. Further to the north is the Keawanui Bay region including Kehena (1&2), Kipi and the Kaupalaoa ahupua a. For the purposes of this analysis, the six ahupua'a surrounding Malae Point are further analyzed to learn the names of the ahupua'a and places on them. In the UH DURP 2005 North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Landscape Study there are two tables which provide information on the names of the ahupua'a, and places associated with these ahupua'a. One table is entitled: "Boundary Descriptions Table" and the other is entitled: "Kohala Boundayy Claims Data Synthesis Part I -Kohala Iwaho (Outer Kohala)" (DURP 2005). There were three informants that provided this information named Kekuaaea (1878), Pohakuauli (1878) and Kanaha (1873 and 1878). (UH-DURP 2005). Cultural ImpactAssessment,for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 30 of 122 0 Figure 6: Information on six ahupua a in coastal region around Malae Point (UH-DURP 2005) IO 10 O O O O Ahupua'a Meaning Boundary Description (from Land Ownership (from "List of name informants as noted, referenced in N. Kohala Ahupua a" in UH- DURP 2005) DURP (2005)) Puanui Big Kanaha (1873) notes areas used for Land Court Award 9971:20 to Flowers cultivation as well as ancient road W. P. Leleiohoku, currently systems. This ahupua'a was noted as owned by B.P. Bishop Trust, having ancient fishing rights leased to Ka'ike o Ka aina. extending out to sea. Puaiki Smal] Returned by L. Kamehameha, Flowers returned by aupuni, became government land, the makai parcel deeded to Kahua Ranch in exchange for other mauka lands. Ki iokalani Statues Kekuaaea states: "thence to Ahuliilii, Land Court Award 8519-B:2 to of the a resting place. The compass was put Fanny Young, ahupua'a Heavens hereto sight [o Puulepo;thence makai acquired by Kahua Ranch, and to Pukoae, a resting place; thence to makai parcel now owned by Malae, a point a[ the shore; bounded Ponoholo Ranch. makai by the sea. Ancient fishing rights extending out to sea..." (Vol. B:276 in UH-DURP 2005). Pohakuauli stated at the same time that Kiiokalani was "bounded makai by the sea, where we went fishing; we had to give fish to the Konohiki..." (Vol. B:277 in Boundary Descriptions Table of UH-DURP 2005) Kaihooa Returned by L. Kamehameha and Leleiohoku, Returned by aupuni, became Government Land Pohakulua Double 1/z returned by E. Kekela, no Stone Land Court Award, ~/x returned by E. Kekela, returned by aupuni, became Government Land Ahulua Government Land, omitted in the Mahele ~ Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 31 of 122 Of the six ahupua a, two (Ki'iokalani and Puanui) had place names noted in Boundary Commission testimonials that were translated and provided in the DURP 2005 report table entitled: "Kohala Boundary Claims Data Synthesis Part I -Kohala Iwaho (Outer Kohala) (DURP 2005). Figure 6 describes place names in the Ki iokalani ahupua'a and Figure 7 describes place names in the Puanui ahupua' a. Figure 7: Place names in Ki iokalani ahupua'a from Boundary Commission testimonials (UH- DURP 2005) Site name Description Informant Puulepo ("Hill of Dirt") Located just above govt road to Kawaihae Kekuaaea, 1878 Anuliilii ("A Little Bit Cold") A resting place Kekuaaea, 1878 Puukoae (Hill of the Koae (either a bird or a banana variety) A resting place Kekuaaea, 1878 Malae (Serene) A point on the coast Kekuaaea, 1878 Kaihooa Pohakuauli, 1878 Kunohohuiwai A place to set water calabashes Pohakuauli, 1878 Ki'iokalani ("Statue of the Heavens") A kauhale (traditional housing complex) was noted as having the same name as the ahupua'a Pohakuauli, 1878 Keeokalani This place was located on the shoreline, and seems [o be the same name of the sand at this site. Kanaha, 1878 Puuokawa Place name Kanaha, 1878 Ahuapaoo Name of a farm site, or mahina ai Kanaha, 1878 Keanakaluapuaa Possibly associated with a site for cooking pigs Kanaha, 1878 Kealakapala Place name Kanaha, 1878 Koaiea A kihipai or smaller land division in an ahupua a Kanaha, 1878 Puupuleha The name of the house site of the informant Kanaha, 1878 Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 32 of 122 10 IO 10 0 O O O Figure 8: Place names in the Puanui ahupua'a from Boundary Commission testimonials (UH- DURP 2005) Site name Description Inforruant Puanui Areas used for cultivation Kanaha, 1873 as well as ancient road systems. this ahupua'a was noted as having fishing rights that extended out to sea Kihelea Located near a road to Kanaha, 1873 Puuhue Hill Wawahonu A point on the shoreline Kanaha, 1873 near a landing area Pohakupuloa Place Name Kanaha, 1873 Luakii A spring located at the Kanaha, 1873 mauka end of this ahupua'a Kaihoa Place Name Kanaha, 1873 Malohaumia The cultivation area of the Kekuaia, 1873 informant Of these six ahupua'a, two of them are noted as having fishing rights that extend out to sea at that time: Ki iokalani and Puanui. In addition to these two areas, the next closest area of konohiki fishing rights was further north in the ahupua'a of Kehena, which was noted as having ancient fishing rights extending to sea (UH-DURP 2005 "List of ahupua'a in N Kohala"). O O As presented in the analyses by Kosaki (1954), Meller (1984) and Maly (2003), through this period of the Great Mahele, the Boundary Commission hearings, and up to the 1893 revolution and Hawaii Organic Act in 1900, konohiki fishing rights went through a process of being formally recognized, and subsequently limited in scope and number. A revolution in 1893 replaced the monarchy with a provisional government and then a republic, which was annexed to the United States in 1898 as a territory (Dorrance and Morgan 2000; Kuykendall 1968; Tomonari-Tuggle 2002). ~ The 1900 Hawaii Organic Act contained specific sections that repealed most exclusive fishing rights and made fishing open to all citizens. if anyone claimed exclusive fishing rights, these must be registered. ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 33 of 122 In 1904, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the intent of Congress in this regard when it stated in re Fukunaga, (16 Haw. 306, 1904) that, "The intent of Congress is clear to destroy, so far as it is in its power to do so, all private rights of fishery and to throw open the fisheries to the people." At the time of the annexation of Hawaii, it could not be accurately determined how many private fisheries existed in the Territory (Bishop v. Mahiko, 35 Haw. 608 (1940) in Kosaki 1954: 9). Of the estimated 300 to 400 private fisheries, about 100 were registered (Kosaki 1954: 9). Despite the fact that the 1873 and 1878 Boundary Review Commission records noted konohiki fishing rights for Ki iokalani ahupua'a, Puanui ahupua'a, and Kehena ahupua a, a review of copies of records compiled by the office of the Territorial Surveyor of all registered fisheries provided in Kosaki (1954) shows that no exclusive fisheries were registered in this area of North Kohala. If the fishery was not registered, then, according to Bishop. v. Mahiko, the right became invalid. (Kosaki 1954). Therefore, it is assumed that there aze no konohiki fishing rights in this area of ocean adjacent to the Proposed Action site. It was in the late 1880s that ranching started as a major land use in this region surrounding Malae Point and the Pu'u Ulaula area. A number of ranchers began to work the lands including Holmes, Borchardt, MaGuire, Austin and Frank Woods. (Schweitzer 2003, pp. 197-199) The area of Pu`u Ulaula is one subregion of the larger Kohala region between Kawaihae and Mahukona including the ahupua`a from Kehena, Pu`uhue, Ki`iokalani, Kawaihae Uka, and Kahua. Land use in this azea and cultural practices remain active in the ranching tradition that has not much changed since the 1880s, when Kohala's ranches were established. The development of ranching as a major land use in the region was advanced in 1928 with the establishment of Kahua Ranch by Atherton Richards and Ronald von Holt, which included about 12,000 acres of land. (Schweitzer 2003). This included fee simple and leased land under ranch management. Among these leased lands is the Pu`u Ulaula region known as the Pahinahina lease, which has been leased by Kahua for pasture purposes for generations. This lease extends from Kaihooa ahupua'a in the north to Pahinahina ahupua'a in the south. Kahua Ranch acquired Ki iokalani ahupua'a and used it as pasture, and transferred title of the makai parcel to Ponoholo Ranch. For over a hundred years, the dominant use of the shoreline area around Malae Point and the Pu`u Ulaula area has been associated with ranching, and recreational and subsistence use by the paniolo families from Kahua Ranch. Kahua Ranch had its beginnings with George Frederick Holmes at about the 3000' elevation. In April 1886, the Ranch was purchased by the Burchazdt brothers, Fred Godfrey and Ernest, from Puuhue with their paztner, John Maguire. In 1891, Maguire bought out the Borchardt share of the ranch, when they returned to England. In 1896, Maguire sold a 50 acre Kahua homestead to Frank Woods, James Woods' younger son. They also leased land around the homestead from Captain Austin, whose wife was a descendant of Kamehameha and had substantial land holdings in the Kawaihae general area. After losing an expensive water rights dispute, and not getting a renewal on the lease of Austin lands, Frank Woods was not able to keep the ranch. (Schweitzer and Gomes 2003, Melrose 1999). As soon as word got to Oahu that Frank Woods had lost the ranch, Ronald Von Holt paztnered with brothers Atherton Richards and Herbert Montague "Monty" Richards, to buy Kahua and the lease. Ronald Von Holt was grandson of a German immigrant to Hawaii. Brothers Atherton Richards and Herbert Montague "Monty" Richazds were grandsons of an early missionazy pioneer to Hawaii. After Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 34 of 122 0 negotiations, they were successful in acquiring the fee simple land and leased land that made up Kahua Ranch. O Schweitzer and Gomes (2003) stated: 10 10 10 to The trio named their new adventure Kahua Ranch, Ltd. It stretched from the misty 'ohia forests filled with native birds at 3,250 feet elevation down to arid pasture land five hundred feet above the sea, at the time about twelve thousand acres all in all. About fifty people worked for von Holt and Richards. Workers' families lived on the ranch, as did immigrant families who leased to homestead and raise crops such as corn. In early years, there was even a school for the first three grades, Pohakuloa or Kehena School, close to the Lincoln family home (p. 198). Today, the lands of Kahua and Ponoholo Ranch include fee simple and leased land from the State of Hawaii. Among these leased lands is the Pu`u Ulaula region known as the Pahinahina lease, which has been leased by Kahua from the State for pasture purposes. This lease represents over 4,000 acres of state land including the ahupua`a of Kaihooa (at Malae Point), Pohakulu, Ahulula, Kokio, Kalala ls`, Kalala 2°d Makiloa, and Pahinahina. Kahua Ranch brought water from the mauka area to the Pahinahina lease for their cattle (Richards, 2008). Kahua Ranch also owned the entire ahupua`a just north of the Pahinahina lease, called Ki`iokalani all the way to the ocean at Malae Point. (Richards 2008) Kahua Ranch was led for fifty years by Monty Richards, the nephew of Atherton Richards and son of Monty Richards, cofounders of Kahua Ranch. In 2004, Monty turned over reins of Kahua Ranch to his son, Tim Richazds. In 1989, part of Kahua Ranch split off to form Ponoholo Ranch, which is currently run by Pono Von Holt, the son of Ronald Von Holt In this process, the makai parcel of Ki`iokalani was transferred to Ponoholo Ranch. Interviewees report that the shoreline area of Ki`iokalani, Puaiki, and the Pu`u Ulaula area has been used by the paniolo families from Kahua Ranch since the Ranch started in 1928 (Ho`opai, 2008, Richazds 2008, Von Holt 2008). Because of this historical association that Monty Richards and Pono Von Holt have with the Pahinahina lease, and Ki`iokalani, local kupuna, William Akau recognized that Monty Richards and Pono Von Holt would be the modern-day cazetakers or konohiki of the area of ocean where the proposed lease site is located. Akau emphasized that Kahua Ranch and Ponoholo Ranch own or lease all the ahupua`a in that area and have ranched the land there for generations. He said that the Ho`opai family should be consulted since they have been the Hawaiian paniolo family using the area for generations. He also said to talk with some longtime fishermen in the area. It's important to recognize that according to records of all registered fisheries in the office of the Territorial Surveyor, none were located off Ki`iokalani ahupua`a, or other ahupua`a in the Pu`u Ulaula region of North Kohala. So, there are no legal konohiki rights or registered fisheries in the area. Rather, ~ Richards and Von Holt are recognized as konohiki in the sense of being the stewards of the land in the area. To the North of Malae Point in the small bay of Waiwaionu, bounded by Ki`iokalani ahupua`a and Puaiki, the ahupua`a adjacent to Ki`iokalani to the north. Puaiki ahupua`a was transferred by King O Kamehameha III in "An Act Relating to the Crown, Government, and Fort Lands, in 1848" to become the lands of the Hawaiian Government. After the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, the lands became part of the Territory of Hawaii. And, after statehood, the lands became part of the state of Hawaii. The ahupua`a mauka of Akone Pule Highway is leased to Parker Ranch under Revocable ~ Cultural LmpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Ayuaculture Project p. 35 of 122 permit S-3219. The pazcel of land in the Puaiki ahupua`a that is makai of Akone Pule Highway was transferred in 1967 by the State of Hawai `i to Kahua Ranch in exchange for the State obtaining other Kahua Ranch land for highway purposes under Grant 5-14,716 to Kahua Ranch, Ltd. The mauka lands of Puaiki ahupua'a and Puanui ahupua a were leased by Parker Ranch and used as pasture. Adjacent to the north of Puaiki is the Puanui ahupua`a, where there was a lazger settlement as indicated by the substantial historic remains described by Bonk (1968) and Clark (1968). The land was awazded to William Pitt Leleiohoku through Royal Patent 8161, Land Commission Awazd 9971, Apana 20. Leleiohoku, a Prince of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in turn willed the land to his first cousin, Princess Bernice Pau'ahi Bishop, and the land is now part of the Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate land holdings. The current lessee is Ka ike o Ka aina, a nonprofit educational and cultural organization, whose President is Michael Hanohano. This is a nonprofit native Hawaiian group of kupuna dedicated to education and cultural programs for keiki. Mr. Hanohano is also the great grand-nephew of W.P. Leleiohoku. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 36 of 122 O 5.0 Nature of Cultural Practices and Beliefs Affected by the Proposed Project This section contains a discussion concerning the nature of the cultural practices and beliefs and the ~ significance of the cultural resources within the project area, affected directly orindirectly by the proposed project. 5.1 The Cultural Setting In the Reeion of Influence Document research and oral history interviews have not provided any oral tradition, legend, or cultural ~ activity associated with the preferred ocean lease site in Kohala off Malae Point in particular. There are no resources within the ROI that are listed on the NRHP (NPS 2007). Ifl 10 to 10 O Interviews with kupuna fishermen noted, and bathymetric charts confirm, that there is no underwater feature in the area of the ocean lease site that would serve to attract fish (Akau 2008, La'au 2008, Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008). They confirmed that in this part of the ocean, the cultural resources and practices of trolling, `opelu fishing, bottom fishing, and shoreline harvesting were all concentrated in coastal waters within 1 to 2 miles from the shoreline. (Akau 2008, La'au 2008, Ho`opai 2008, Richards 2008). Cultural activities today are a modem reflection of the same cultural activities of ancient times, including fishing in the coastal waters, and from the shoreline. `Opelu koa were well known to the master fishermen, who tended these ko`a to prepare the fish for harvest during its proper season. Interviewees noted that there were `opelu ko`a fishing grounds all along this part of the coast, within'/z mile from shore at locations close to Waiakailio Bay, all along the Red Hill (Pu'u Ulaula) area to Black Point (Malae Point), and Waiwaionu Bay at Puanui, and beyond to Keaweula Bay all the way to Mahukona (Akau 2008 and La`au 2008). In addition to the `opelu, fishermen would also troll along the 30 - 40 fathom contour for ono, or other target species (Akau 2008, La`au 2008, Ho`opai 2008, Richards 2008). Fishermen would also fish for aku, during its proper season. And fishermen would also target onaga and other bottom fish (La`au 2008, Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008). These `opelu ko`a are very important natural and cultural resources and could be considered as an Area of Traditional Importance or ATI. They are located over two miles away from the proposed ocean lease site. The ono and mahi trolling lane may be considered an Area of Traditional Importance since Hawaiians trolled in this manner in prehistoric and historic times. A third type of fishery that is closeby to the Proposed Action site is the bottom fish fishery. Bottom fishing extended out to about the 150-160 fathoms, or about one mile from the Proposed Action site (Fukuyama 2008). Bottom fishing grounds may also be considered an ATI since bottomfishing was a well established native Hawaiian fishery from prehistoric and historic times. Even though the 1873 and 1878 Boundary Review Commission records noted konohiki fishing rights for Ki iokalani ahupua'a, Puanui ahupua'a, and Kehena ahupua'a, a review of copies of records compiled by the office of the Territorial Surveyor of all registered fisheries provided in Kosaki (1954) shows that ~ no exclusive fisheries were registered in this area of North Kohala. If the fishery was not registered, then, according to Bishop. v. Mahiko, the right became invalid. (Kosaki 1954). Therefore, it is assumed that there are no konohiki fishing rights in this area of ocean adjacent to the Proposed Action site. ~ To provide some cultural context for the preferred ocean lease site offshore Malae Point, this analysis looked to the land closest and due west of the ocean lease site for information. There are numerous remains of historic dwelling sites found along the shoreline at several sites dispersed along the Pu`u Ulaula region as described above. ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Kawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 37 of 122 In the2005 study completed by UH-DURP entitled: North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Landscape Study reviewed all the azcheological surveys of leeward Kohala coastal area. This information has been incorporated into this report. There were no protective buffer zones recommended at Malae Point for historic site protection. p Along dhe shoreline is a section of the Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail, that connects ancient and modern trails along the shoreline and mauka-makai. The Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail recognizes the significance of the coastal trail and its corridor as a cultural resource that shaped the Hawaiian culture. While the Pu`u Ulaula area of North Kohala is included in the designated Trail ~ system, it is outside the priority area for implementing the 15 year planning period for all alternatives in their recent Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental [mpact Statement (AKNHT- NPS 2007, p. 5) Maps in this document showing the North Kohala region of the Trail note that the land in the ~Pu`u Ulaula area is government owned land, except for Ki`iokalani. The map names the area "Kahua Ranch, Ponoholo Ranch (Malae Point), and indicates there was a possible lateral trail along this E3' coastline (AKNHT - NPS, 2007, p. 99). There is a trail that goes mauka-makai in the Ki iokalani ahupu,a'a, and a partial coastal trail along the shoreline (Stevens 1994 in DURP 2005) The shoreline is used for camping, fishing, gathering for recreational, subsistence, and cultural purposes (Ho opai 2008), (Hanohano, personal communication). The coastal waters are used for `opelu fishing, and trolling for mahi and ono, and bottomfishing for onaga and other bottomfish. A primary cultural ~ value that was stated by the Ho`opai `ohana and shared by Monty Richazds, Pono Von Holt, Robert Cambia, Kwanji Fukuyama, William Akau and Lala La`au is to take care of nature and it'll take care of you. !Bernard Ho`opai said, "You have to take care of nature and it'll take care of you. You need to give back. The more you give back, the more it'll take care of you." (Ho'opai 2008). Similar statements can be seen in Richards (2008), Cambra (2008), Fukuyama (2008), Akau (2008) and La au ~ (20081). 5.2 Potential for Unknown Resources, Based on historical document research, oral history interviews, and observational surveys, there is no O documentation or memory of existing or possible cultural resources in the Region of Influence (ROI). Nonetheless, it is possible, though highly unlikely, that future surveys and research may reveal their prese~ice, at which point further studies and documentation maybe undertaken. 6.0 Confidential Information. This section contains any information or explanation of confidential information that has been withheld from public disclosure in the assessment. There was no confidential information provided to the author. E C 7.0. Conflicting Information This section contains a discussion concerning any conflicting information in regard to identified cultural resources, practices and beliefs. There was agreement among those associated with the coastal lands, that there would be no negative impact of the proposed operation on cultural activities and resources on land and the coastal waters they used. There was agreement on the location of cultural resources, such as `opelu ko`a, trolling areas, and bottom fishing areas, and the cultural landscape of the coastal lands. C There was agreement that the proposed ocean lease site is deeper than the areas used for bottom fishing and `opelu. There was agreement that the area is not specifically targeted for trolling, though it may be used for trolling by boats in transit from nearshore fishing areas to offshore trolling areas. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 38 of 122 ~ 0 There was agreement that the platforms may attract `opelu, but that it would not have a permanent affect on the `opelu fishery. There was agreement that the platforms would probably attract mahi and Q ono and other fish. There was agreement that fishermen should be able to fish for these fish around the platforms. Some individuals thought it might have a beneficial impact on fishing, especially trolling, and make it easier for people to fish for mahi and ono. However, other interviewees disagreed and warned that the Oceanspheres would have a negative impact on bottomfishing. O There was disagreement and conflicting information presented about the potentially positive or negative impact of the proposed operation acting as a fish aggregating device. Each of these individuals have their own perspective on cultural practices and cultural resources. These opinions do disagree. All of these ideas and opinions are presented in this report. 10 IQ 0 O 8.0 An analvsis of the potential effect of the proposed action This section presents an analysis of the potential effect of any proposed physical alteration on cultural resources, practices or beliefs; the potential of the proposed action to isolate cultural resources or practices or beliefs from their setting; and the potential of the proposed action to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which cultural practices take place. S.1 Potential impacts of proposed action on cultural resources practices or beliefs in the ocean lease site This section presents an analysis of the potential effect of any proposed physical alteration on cultural resources, practices or beliefs; the potential of the Proposed Action to isolate cultural resources or practices or beliefs from their setting; and the potential of the proposed action to introduce elements which may alter the setting in which cultural practices take place. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources have been identified in the Proposed Action ocean lease site as eligible or listed as a nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Document research and oral history interviews have not provided any oral tradition, legend, or cultural activity associated with the preferred Kohala ocean lease site in particular. The site is far offshore and interviewees have noted that it is not used specifically for trolling, net fishing, bottom fishing, or other cultural practice (Cambra 2008, Fukuyama 2008, La`au 2008). The area may be used by fishermen trolling from the nearshore ono lane to offshore fishing grounds. There are no historical documents of any official registered konohiki fishing rights in the area. Interviews with kupuna fishermen noted, and bathymetric charts confirm, that there is no underwater feature in the area of the ocean lease site that would serve to attract fish (La`au 2008, Akau 2008). 8.2 Potential imnacts of proposed action on cultural resources practices or beliefs in the adjacent ocean ~ area surroundme ocean lease site In the ocean area adjacent to the proposed ocean lease site, cultural activities today area modern reflection of the same cultural activities of ancient times, including fishing in the coastal waters, and from the shoreline adjacent to the Proposed Action site. `Opelu ko`a were well known to the master fishermen, who tended these ko`a to prepare the fish for harvest during its proper season. Interviewees O noted that there were `opelu ko`a fishing grounds all along this part of the coast including Waiakailio Bay, Red Hill (Pu`u Ulaula) and Black Point (Malae Point). Q Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 39 of 122 0 These `opelu ko`a are very important natural and cultural resources and could be considered as an ATI. The ko`a are located over two miles away from the proposed ocean lease site. Two `opelu fishermen said they did not expect there to be any affect of the proposed aquaculture operation on the `opelu ko`a (La`au~l 2008 and Cambra 2008). Other fishermen thought that there might be some affect on `opelu ~ migration patterns (Fukuyama 2008). Interviewees with master fishermen in the area noted that there were no `opelu ko`a at the proposed ocean lease site, but there were ko`a about two miles from the site, located within''/z mile from the shoreline along the Pu`u Ulaula area. Two fishermen expressed a concern that the FADs caused `opelu to gather away from the ko`a (Paulo, in Maly 2003: 293 and Fukuyama 2008) . However, others felt that th'e distance from shore, as well as the depth of the waters in the area of the proposed ocean lease site wtiuld result in less potential to cause anything other than temporary effects on the behavior of nearsh~ore fisheries, like `opelu (La`au 2008 and Cambra 2008). This concern was evaluated by analyzing the data from the closest comparable in Hawai `i, the Cates ~ Interniitional, Inc. moi farm off Oahu. The farm site is about 2 miles offshore, but in shallower waters than the proposed ocean lease site off Kohala. Fishermen on Oahu originally expressed opposition to the establishment of the fish farm; now however, they are reportedly very supportive of its presence (KBWF 2003). The `opelu fishermen, particular, have reacted positively to the farm's presence, because of thelbenefits that it has brought in terms of increased catches and regularity of catches. Evidence from O the Ewa Beach fish platform is that `opelu may be attracted to the platform for some periods, but that the schools still do move up and down the coast (Cates 2003). While it is unknown whether there is any change in the overall abundance of `opelu, or rather only in distribution, the platform will probably not exclude `opelu from the `opelu ko`a ,located over two miles away from the platforms. O In addition to the `opelu, fishermen troll for mahimahi and ono, and target bottom fish in the fishing grounds in an area limited to the coastal waters between Puako and Mahukona (Cambra 2008, and Fukuyama 2008). Fishermen would troll along the 30 - 40 fathom contour for ono, mahimahi or other target!~,species, which places the trolling lanes over two miles from the proposed ocean lease site. Bottom fishing for onaga in the area of the ocean lease site extends out to 150 fathoms, which places the ~ closest bottom fishing area about one mile from the proposed ocean lease site (Fukuyama 2008). Bottom-fishing season opened in November 2008. During bottom fishing season, an increased number of boats bottom-fishing is expected out to 140-150 fathoms (Fukuyama 2008). When these fishermen are not bottom-fishing, they may be trolling for ono and mahimahi along the 30-40 fathom line parallel to shore. With all these changes one fishermen summarized the situation saying, "the fishing is hard - e there are plenty fishermen now, more fishermen than fish -the area is kinda almost wiped out" (Fukuyama 2008) Among the interviewees, there was agreement on the location of cultural resources, such as `opelu ko`a, trolling areas, and bottom fishing areas, and the cultural landscape of the coastal ]ands. There was agreement that the proposed ocean lease site is deeper than the areas used for bottom fishing and `opelu. There was agreement that the area is not specifically targeted for trolling, though it may be used for trolling by boats in transit from nearshore fishing areas to offshore trolling areas. There was agreement that the platforms may attract `opelu, but that it would not have a permanent affect on the `opelu fishery. There was agreement that the platforms would probably attract mahi and ono and other fish. There was agreement that fishermen should be able to fish for these fish around the Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 40 of 122 0 platforms. Some individuals thought it might have a beneficial impact on fishing, especially trolling, and make it easier for people to fish for mahi and ono. ~ However, other interviewees warned of a potential negative impact on bottomfishing (Cambra 2008, and Fukuyama 2008). There was concern that the proposed aquaculture operation would interrupt the migratory patterns of bottom fish, as well as mahi and ono (Fukuyama 2008). This concern was based in part on the assumption that some food will escape the cages and attract fish. For bottomfish, it was assumed this excess feed or waste would make it to the bottom (Fukuyama). ~ Fukuyama warned that the Oceanspheres would attract the bottomfish away from their usual grounds because of the smell and bits of food that would drift to the bottom. He predicted there would be more sharks in the area, which would mean more shark predation on bottom fish and, in his words, "It will be the end of bottom fishing in this area" (Fukuyama 2008). O The Hawaii Oceanic Technology Inc. information describes that no waste or excess feed will make it to the bottom (HOTI EISPN 2008), as a way tp mitigate the potential negative impact its operations may have on bottomfish. While this concern was expressed, it was also expressed that no one was really sure if it was going to ~ have a positive or negative impact until the aquaculture operation is established. Everyone agreed that there would have to be some monitoring to see if it's having an impact or not, and continuing dialog with the fishing community. to 10 There was also concern that the proposed aquaculture farm might attract more sharks to the area with the increase in the number of fish around the cages (Akau 2008, Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). Bottom fishermen expressed concern about this increase in sharks and its negative effect on their fishery. A specific concern was that more sharks will eat more bottomfish, as well as steal the catch off the fishing lines (Fukuyama 2008). To Hawaiians, the shark is a sacred animal, and is considered a member of their ohana. When developing the shark management plan for the aquaculture farm, it would be important make sure that measures to keep the sharks away from working divers must be culturally appropriate. The presence of the open ocean aquaculture platforms would likely reduce access to areas that fishermen would otherwise have had open access to in the past. ~ 8.3 Potential impacts of proposed action on cultural resources practices or beliefs on the adiacent land To determine how the proposed activity might affect the traditional cultural values and practices associated with the adjacent land area, twelve ahupua`a in the area were researched in the area locally known as Pu`u ulaula (Pahinahina to Kaihooa) and Black Point (Malae Point) (Ki`iokalani, Puaiki and Puanui), including identifying and contacting all the known and identified cultural practitioners and ~ kupuna, local landowners or long-term lessees, the recognized konohiki of the area and the native Hawaiian families culturally attached to the land. For the interviewees who camped and shorefished along the shoreline adjacent to the proposed site, they were asked to assess the impact of the proposed action, alternatives, and mitigation measures on the O culwral resources, practices and beliefs. In the interviews, each of them said it wouldn't affect them at all. They each emphasized that the site was far offshore, in deep water that is not used for any cultural activity, such as fishing, and was not in the path of any cultural activity such as voyaging. They also noted that the distance from shore resulted in the proposed project having no impact on the viewshed ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 41 of 122 0 from the coastal trails and camps. They said there are already boats that regularly traverse the ocean closer to shore, so a few more boats won't make a difference. In other words, the interviewees with cultural associations with the adjacent land all agreed that the addition of the proposed project's work boats and the tops of Oceanspheres, will have no impact on the cultural resources, practices and beliefs ~ of the coastal lands (Richards 2008, Von Holt 2008, Ho`opai 2008, Hanohano 2008). A primary cultural value that was stated by the Ho`opai `ohana and shared by other interviewees is: "You Have to take care of nature and ifll take care of you. You need to give back. The more you give back, the more ifll take care of you." (Ho`opai 2008). Bernard Ho`opai encouraged the aquaculture O farm tai give back to the environment and community. Cultural practitioners and kama`aina with multi-generational connections to the land on the adjacent shoreline also noted no positive or negative impact of the proposed action on their activities (Ho`opai 2008, Hanohano 2008, Akau 2008, Von Holt 2008, Richards 2008). O Interviewees also noted that there may be some positive impact of the proposed project as a modern example of stewardship of the ocean showing how technology is helping provide fish from the sea, now that tH'e fishing stocks have been depleted (Ho`opai 2008, Von Holt 2008, Richards 2008). Even though this was not expressed by the interviewees, other Native Hawaiian individuals and groups O could'perceive that the presence of this industry, the Oceanspheres, the increased level of activity, the navigation lights and buoys may contribute to or diminish the connection with their ancestors and disrupt the balance of Native Hawaiian areas of traditional importance. O Based. on the analysis above, the proposed aquaculture farm at the ocean lease site offshore Malae Point is not jspecifically targeted for any cultural activities relating to fishing. The proposed ocean lease site maybe used in transit by fishermen trolling from nearshore waters to go to offshore fishing areas for trolling. 0 The presence of the open ocean aquaculture platforms would likely reduce access to areas that fishermen would otherwise have had open access to in the past. There are no historical buildings or documented archeological resources within the proposed ocean lease site. The exclusive control over the waters (and the fish) inside the Oceanspheres is consistent with traditional and cultural practices hhat identified fish O traps or lobster traps -and the animals therein - as the private property of the trap owner. The same principles would apply here. The proposed ocean lease site is located over two miles from the areas targeted for nearshore fishing, including `opelu and trolling. The proposed ocean lease site is located about one mile from the deepest depth~targeted for bottom fishing. Fukuyama warned that the Oceanspheres would attract the bottomfish away from their usual grounds because of the smell and bits of food that would drift to the bottom. He predicted this would increase shark, predation on bottom fish and, in his words, "It will be the end of bottom fishing in this area" (Fukuyama 2008). Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 42 of 122 O While this concern was expressed, it was also expressed that no one was really sure if it was going to have a positive or negative impact until the aquaculture operation is established. Everyone agreed that there would have to be some monitoring of fisheries to see if it's having an impact or not. Q The Hawaii Oceanic Technology Inc. did a Zone of Mixing analysis and oceanographic analysis that indicated no waste or excess feed will make it to the bottom of the 1,320' deep ocean (HOTI EISPN 2008). This will prevent any additional food to attract bottomfish to the area. Nonetheless, it will be important for the company to maintain an ongoing dialog with the bottomfish fishermen to monitor changes in the catch rates or patterns, as a way to make sure that the potential negative impact on O bottomfish can be mitigated. There was also concern that the proposed aquaculture farm might attract more sharks to the azea with the increase in the number of fish around the cages (Akau 2008, Fukuyama 2008, Cambra 2008). Bottom fishermen expressed concern about this increase in sharks and its negative effect on their fishery. A O specific concern was that more sharks will eat more bottomfish, as well as steal the catch off the fishing lines (Fukuyama 2008). To Hawaiians, the shark is a sacred animal, and is considered a member of their ohana. When developing the shark management plan for the aquaculture farm, it would be important make sure that measures to keep the sharks away from working divers must be culturally appropriate. O Cultural practitioners and kama`aina with multi-generational connections to the coastal land on the adjacent shoreline also noted no positive or negative impact of the proposed action on their activities (Ho`opai 2008, Hanohano 2008, Akau 2008, Von Holt 2008, Richards 2008). 0 10 Interviewees also noted that there may be some positive impact of the proposed project as a modern example of stewardship of the ocean showing how technology is helping provide fish from the sea, now that the fishing stocks have been depleted (Ho`opai 2008, Von Holt 2008, Richards 2008). There were requests for the company to give back to the environment and the community in some way. Many said that fishermen should be able to fish around the Oceanspheres. Others suggested that the company release some fish into the wild. The HOTI EISPN notes that the company will allow fishermen to fish around the Oceanspheres, just not above them or below them (HOTI EISPN 2008). This will allow local fishermen to benefit from the ~ additional fish attracted to the Oceanspheres. Even though it was not expressed by the interviewees, it is possible that other Native Hawaiian groups could perceive that the presence of the ocean platforms, the increased level of activity, the navigation lights and buoys may contribute to or diminish the connection with their ancestors and disrupt the O balance of Native Hawaiian areas of traditional importance. Based on all this input, it is concluded that there would be no significant impacts to cultural resources, practices or beliefs in the proposed ocean lease area off Malae Point, or in the surrounding ocean in the Kohala area. O 0 Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 43 of 122 O 9.0 Limited Cultural impact Assessment of Alternanve rte ort neanore romr m nuna Hawaii Oceanic Technology requested that as part of this report on the cultural impacts for the proposed ocean lease site off Malae Point in North Kohala, that the study include a limited review of the available oral history resources regarding an alternative ocean lease site that was considered and not selected as ~ the proposed site. This alternative site is located about 2.6 nautical miles west of Keahole Point in North Kona. There are no historical buildings or documented archeological resources listed in the National Historic RegisCer Places (NPS 2008) within the Region of Influence including the one square kilometer ~ alternative site west of Keahole Point, and the area used by the operation at Kawaihae Commercial Harbor. To understand the cultural resources and potential impacts on these cultural resources in the Alternative site off Keahole Point in Kona, this study reviewed transcripts from previously conducted interviews including: George Kahananui, Lily Ha`anio-Kong, Peter Park, Robert Punihaole and Valentine Ako, that were conducted by Kepa Maly and included in Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai'a A Me Na Ko `a O Na Kai 'Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, prepared for The Nature Conservancy in 2003. In addition, this study reviewed the notes from meetings of Kona Blue Water Farms with Kekaha O kupuna regarding the concept of the proposed open ocean fish farm, which were used to obtain input on traditional perspectives and cultural issues with specific reference to open ocean aquaculture. (KBWF 2002). The coastal lands on the shore closest to the alternative site are the lands of Kalaoa and `O`oma, which are both part of the broader coastal region called Kekaha. O In prehistoric and historic times, there were numerous fishing communities that lived along the coast, including one at Ho`ona (now a Historic Reserve) at Kalaoa near Keahole Point, Wawaloli and `O`oma E to the'~south. Additional habitation sites are found continuing south through Kohanaiki, Kaloko, Honokohau, all the way to Kailua. The Journal of William Ellis in 1823 included a description of Kailua, the larger settlement several miles south~,of the Keahole area in the following passage. While it is not specifically the same place, it does give one an indication of how the coast in this area was populated. Kairua, though healthy and populous, is desritute of fresh water, except what is found in pools, or small streams, in the mountains, four or five miles from the shore. (p. 29) The houses, which are neat are generally built on the sea-shore, shaded with cocoa-nut and kou trees, which greatly enliven the scene. The environment was cultivated to a considerable extent; small gardens were seen among the barren rocks on which the houses are built, wherever soil could be found sufficient to nourish the sweet potato, the watermelon, or even a few plants of tobacco, and in many places these seemed to he growing literally in the fragments of lava, collected in small heaps around their roots. The next morning, Messrs. Thurston, Goodrich and Harwood walked toward the mountains, to visit the high and cultivated parts of the district. After traveling over the lava for about a mile, the hollows in the rocks began to be filled with a light brown soil: Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 44 of 122 0 O and about half a mile further, the surface was entirely covered with a rich mould, formed by decayed vegetable matter and decomposed lava. Here they enjoyed the agreeable shade of bread-fruit and `ohia trees.... (p. 31) The path now lay through a beautiful part of the country, quite a garden compared with that through which they had passed on first leaving the town. It was generally divided into small fields, about fifteen rods square, fenced with low stone walls, built with fragments of lava gathered from the surface of the enclosures. Those fields were planted O with bmrana, sweet potatoes, mountain taro, paper mulberry plants, rnelons, and sugar- cane, which flourished luxuriantly in every direction... (Ellis 1963). In Kona, the stories from fishing activity identified neazshore and offshore fisheries, including stories about `opelu fishing, collection of opae ula for fishing (Ako, Valentin, et al, p. 52) and travel and trade O between the makai fishermen and the mauka farmers within an ahupua`a or its neighbors. George Kinoulu Kahananui, Sr. described `opelu fishing in the Nor[h Kona azea, shazk fishing, neazshore fishing (Kahananui, George, p. 226- 238, etc..), especially the area between `O`oma and Kaupulehu, which includes Keahole, the lands of Kalaoa and Kekaha. O Walter Paulo described `opelu fishing and the maintenance of the `opelu ko`a. He notes in his interview that the `opelu ko`a is "...maybe hundred to hundred fifty feet...I would say about a quarter mile offshore." (Paulo, pp. 291-292). Paulo describes the effect of Fish Aggregation buoys on `opelu ko`a "You going to attract if you have a buoy there and you attach a netting like on it, it's to attract the small fishes. You are going to find' `opelu over there." But he also notes he is in favor of fish aggregating O devices when asked what he thought of them: "It's very good provided you can find it. But they do attract, why they put it in that depth it attracts ono, it attracts mahimahi." (Paulo, p. 293). He also described various bottom fishing and the introduction of long line fishing in Kona. He described aku and `ahi fisheries in the North Kona area and also discussed trolling for aku a mile or less offshore (p. 307) Paulo also talks of fishing for aku at the "hundred fathom ledge or fifty, this aku comes up." O (Paulo, p..3 ] 9). Kepa Maly notes in this interview 'O It is very interesting, in the old Hawaiian laws that you see in the traditions, and the stories of traveling great distances to go out and fish. The large canoes, mostly ali'i kinds of things. By 1839 when you see the laws that Kamehameha III enacted, and as they carried through in subsequent laws. They always reference going out as far as the malolo fishery and into the high seas beyond. You'll find just that wording, they talk about the 'apapa fishery, the kilohe `e, malolq and the deep sea, the high seas. We know that there is a tradition of the kupuna making great use of the resources near and far" (Paulo, p. 319). O Paulo also reiterates a common Hawaiian cultural value: "You have to malama this aina. Because it takes care of you. And it is the same with the ocean and the ko`a i'a. Take care of them because they take care of you." (Paulo, p. 327). Peter Pazk discusses the fisheries of the area near Keahole (Kaloko - `O `oma -Kalaoa azea) and O discussed limu collecting, nearshore fisheries, trade of fishermen with families of the uplands. (Pazk, pp. 373 - 390) O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 45 of 122 O Valentine Ako speaks of fishing in Kona to depths of more than 1,000 feet for "maguro," which he describes as "that's the one goes up to fifteen hundred pounds." (Ako, p. 422). He describes `opelu fishing close to shore, and mazked the 41 fathom contour in an interview with Kepa Maly (Ako, p. 437). Ako discussed aku fishing far from shore. He notes they would go out twenty miles to find the aku to ~ catch, (Ako, p. 425) Ako also spoke specifically of Keahole and the currents faced in the waters by the point. (Ako, p. 425-426). He also spoke of fishing for ~opakapaka, ehu and other species to depths of more than 900 feet. (Ako, p. 428) Ako spoke of going out to "The Keahole lighthouse, about a mile outside of Keahole lighthouse...These were our fishing grounds and beyond that. It all depends on the current.." (Ako, p. 430). Ako also criticized the Fish Aggregating Devices, and recommended getting rid of [hem. (Ako, p. 441-442). Ako discusses akule fishing in the neazshore area (Ako, p. 450-453) and fishing for other species in the neazshore area (Ako, pp. 457-469) Robert Punihaole spoke of `opelu ko`a being two or three hundred feet from shore (Punihaole, p. 529). He also spoke of going fishing far from the sight of land (Punihaole, p. 532). But, he also spoke of fishing in his youth being three or four miles offshore (Punihaole, p. 533). Punihaole spoke of the treacherous current at Keahole (Punihaole, p. 533). He described the shoreline fishing as lt's for the ohana, that's food for the family. But when we go outside moana, it's `opelu, aku, ulaula, opakapaa, all this water...Kukaula if you're going for "ahi you go hundred twenty, hundred forty for `ahi. Fathoms....Kundred eighty fathoms. If you go for `ula `ula, eighty fathoms. You go for `ahi holq not the kind 'ahi `ele `ele is way down, hundred forty, hundred thirty fathoms. The `ahi holoholq holo i waena, is forty fathoms. You go kaka drop forty fathoms. You start from thirty nothing, then you hit forty, you mark your line. As soon as the fish come up you huki up, put in the boat, you bait `em, put your kakn, let go the pohaku. You not going get a pohaku, you going get the ahi. ~ (Punihaole, pp. 534-535). Punihaole talked about trolling for aku (Punihaole, p. 535) in the deeper waters, and fishing for luhe e and a 6vaziety of finfish in the neazshore waters. (Punihaole, p. 570) Along the shoreline of Kekaha is a section of the Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail, that connects ~ ancient and modern trails along the shoreline and mauka makai. The National Trail recognizes the significance of the coastal trail as a cultural resource that shaped the Hawaiian culture. The Keahole Point"area is designated as an area with "High Potential Cultural Sites and Complexes" and is described as follows: "Keahole Point to Kaloko Ahupua`a includes small clusters of permanent houses, associated Q graves, small heiau, and temporary shelters including Wawaloli - `O`oma habitation cluster that exemplifies the ancient and historic periods (AKNHT-NPS 2007, p. 23) 9.2 Potential Impacts of Proposed Action on Cultural Resources in alternative ocean lease azea and surrounding area: Since. there are no historical buildings or documented archeological resources listed in the National C Historic Register Places (NPS 2008) for the alternative ocean lease area, the focus of potential impact is on cultural resources and practices, such as fishing. Based on the analysis of these oral histories, it appears that there was much fishing in the Kona azea taking place neazshore, within a mile from shore and mostly within'/z mile and along the shoreline. In C addition, there were recognized fisheries in the deep water going to over 1000' for ahi, 900' for opakapaka and ehu (Ako p. 428). One interviewee mentioned fishing in his youth at three or four miles offshore. (Punihaole, p. 533) Beyond this distance, there were also fisheries for pelagic species or Cultural lmpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 46 of 122 0 bottom fish species in certain locations with submerged banks or current patterns. This pattern of use is reflected in modern fishing practices. Fishermen report that they fish all over the Keahole Point area including out to deep water trolling in the area offshore North Kona at the 1000 fathom contour (Isaacs Q 2008, Rizutto 2007, Sylva 2008), which is located about three to four miles offshore. Interviewees and cultural historians cited in the Kona Blue Water Farm Environmental Assessment noted that there were no `opelu ko`a at the azea of the Kona Blue Water Farm lease site (KBWF 2003, p. 68). Using this same information, as well as the data from Ako, Paulo, and others, it can be concluded O that the closest `opelu ko`a would be near the shoreline, located over two miles from the proposed alternative ocean lease site. This distance, as well as the depth of the waters in the azea of the Alternative Lease site offshore Keahole Point would result in very limited potential to affect the behavior of nearshore fisheries, like `opelu. Nonetheless, Walter Paulo was clear that even the FADS caused `opelu to gather away from the ko`a (Paulo, p. 293) . O To evaluate this concern, the experience of the closest compazable site in Hawai `i is the Cates International, Inc. moi farm off Oahu. The farm site is about 2 miles offshore, but in shallower waters than the proposed ocean lease site off Kohala. Fishermen on Oahu originally expressed opposition to the establishment of the fish farm; now however, they are reportedly very supportive of its presence (KBWF 2003). The `opelu fishermen, pazticulaz, have reacted positively to the fazm's presence, because O of the benefits that it has brought in terms of increased catches and regularity of catches. Evidence from the'Ewa Beach fish platform is that `opelu may be attracted to the platform for some periods, but that the schools still do move up and down the coast (Cates 2003). While it is unknown whether there is any change in the overall abundance of `opelu, or rather only in distribution, the platform will probably not exclude `opelu from the `opelu ko`a ,located over two miles away from the platforms. Q With this in mind, the alternative ocean ]ease site offshore Keahole Point is not likely to result in any significant impact on the nearshore fisheries. However, operations at the ocean lease site may result in some conflict with trolling at this 1000 fathom depth contour. The presence of the aquaculture platforms would likely reduce access to areas that fishermen would otherwise had open access to in the Q past. Regular communication with trollers and fishing tournament organizers will help mitigate some of this negative impact. Fortunately, there is a very large expanse of ocean used for fishing in this area. Therefore, the impact on cultural activities and resources of one square kilometer is considered less than significant. Q Based on this analysis, it is concluded that under Alternative 2, there would be less than significant impacts to Areas of Traditional Importance in the ocean lease area and surrounding ocean area in Kona. The presence of the platforms may result in a greater concentration of fish aggregating nearby the alternative site, which would have the potential beneficial result of increasing catches for fishermen in the azea. O O Q Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 47 of 122 0 10.0 Biblioeraphy: Akau, William Ah You and Annie K'ahiki]ani "Lani" Akau, South Kohala Fisheries -Oral History Interview at Kawaihae July 6, 1998 -with Kepa Maly (with notes from April 10, 1999) in Maly, Kepa ~ and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai `a A Me Na Ko `a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Martine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Lslands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Akau, ',William Ah You, Interview about Pu`u Ulaula, (Red Hill) and Malae Point (Black Point) area of North Kohala on June 18, 2008 with David Tarnas in Hawaii Oceanic Technology Proposed Ahi Aquac'ulture Farm North Kohala Ocean Lease Site Cultural IrnpactAssessment, prepared by MCS International for Hawaii Oceanic Technology, December 2008. Ako, Valentine K., Recollections of Fisheries -Native Practices and Commercial Enterprises (The District of North Kona, Island of Hawaii and the Island of Kauai) February 14`h and June 2151, 2003 - with Kepa Maly, in Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai `a A Me Na Ko `a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Lslands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Ako, Valentine K., Margie Kaholo-Kailianu, David Keakealani, Caroline Keakealani-Pereira, Arthur (Aka)!Mahi, Joseph Pu`ipui Maka`ai, Rose Pilipi-Maeda, and family members with Kepa Maly, ~ December 7, 1996, in Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai'a A Me Na Ko `a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail - U.S. National Park Service, Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, ~ Draft;Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 2007 Bergin, Dr. Billy, Loyal to the Land.• The Legendary Parker Ranch 750- 1950, University of Hawaii Press 2004 Bonk: Bill, An archeological survey of a coastal tract in North and South Kohala Kawaii, Hawaii ~ Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, 1968. Cahill, Emmett, The Life and Times of John Young, Confidant and Advisor to Kamehameha the Great, Island Heritage Publishing, 1999. E Cambra, Robert, personal communication with David Tarnas on August 19, 2008, and December 23, 2008. Campbell, Archibald, A Voyage Around the World from 1806 untill812. UH Press, Honolulu, 1967 in Newman, 1968. C Chinen, Jon J., The Great Mahele UH Press, Honolulu, ] 958. Cobb;; John N., Commercial fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. Report of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, 1902 in Newman, 1968. C Cordy, Ross H. 1981. A Study of Prehistoric Social Change. Academic Press, New York Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 48 of 122 0 Damon, E.M., 1950. Letters from the Life of Abner and Lucy Wilcox, 1836-1869. Privately printed. O Honolulu. Ellis, William, Journal of William Ellis -Reprint of the London 1827 Edition, Advertiser Publishing Co., Honolulu, 1963, in Newman, 1968. O Ellis, William 1969. Polynesian Researches: Hawaii. Charles E. Tuttle Co., Rutland, Vermont. Fornander, Abraham. 1996 (1880). Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha I. With introduction by Glen Grant. Reprinted, paperback, Mutual Publishing, Honolulu, Hawaii. Originally published as An Account of the Polynesian Race, its Origin and Migrations, vol. II. O Trubner, London, England. Fukuyama, Kwanji, interview with David Tarnas in Hawaii Oceanic Technology Proposed Ahi Aquaculture Farm North Kohala Ocean Lease Site Cultural Lmpact Assessment, prepared by MCS International for Hawai `i Oceanic Technology, December 2008. O Gosline, William A. and Vernon E. Brock, Handbook of Hawaiian Fishes, University of Hawaii Press: Honolulu, 1965, in Newman (1968). Ha`anio -Kong, Lily Namakaokai`a at Keauhou, Oral History Interviews and Site Visits with Kepa Maly March 7`h, Mazch 27`h and May ls`, 1996 in Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai `a A O Me Na Ko `a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Elizabeth G. Handy, with Mary K. Pukui. 1978. Native Planters in Old Hawai `i. Their Life, Lore, and Environment. 2"d printing. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop O Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawai `i. Hawaii Constitutional Convention Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, Standing Committee Report No. 57 (August 25, 1978) in Meller, 1985. O Hawaii Oceanic Technology (HOT) Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice. (EISPN) (Hawaii Oceanic Technology, November 23, 2008) Ho`opai, Kimo, Leina`ala Ho`opai, and Bernard Ho`opai, Interview about Ki`iokalani and the Pahinahina lease azea on June 27, 2008 with David Tarnas in Hawaii Oceanic Technology Proposed Ahi O Aquaculture Farm North Kohala Ocean Lease Site Cultural Lmpact Assessment, prepared by MCS International for Hawaii Oceanic Technology, December 2008. I`i, John Papa. 1963. Fragments of Hawaiian History, as recorded by John Papa I`i. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. O Isaacs, Norm in "Sportfishing the Kona Coast of Hawaii" by Doug Kelly in Sportfishing Magazine, accessed at www.alohazone com/news 2 html , 2008. O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 49 of 122 Iverson, Robert, Tom Dye, Linda Paul, Native Hawaiian Fishing Rights, Phase 2, the Main Hawaiian Islands and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, July 1990. Jordan; David Starr and Barton Warren Evermann, Preliminary Report on the Investigations of the Fishes'~and Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, 57`s Congress, ls` session, House of Representatives Document No. 249 in January 13, 1902. Ka Elele, Volume 4, Number 5, July 14, 1848, accessed from Ulukau: Hawaiian Electronic Library, Ho`olaupa`i Hawaiian Nupepa Collection. Kahananui, George Kinoulu, Sr. and Annie Kalani`ini Coelho, Fisheries of the Lands of Kohanaiki, Kaloko and `O`oma, North Kona, Apri14, 2002, with Kepa Maly, in Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai `a A Me Na Ko'a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Kamakau, Samuel M. 1992. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Revised Edition. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Kona Blue Water Farms (KBWF), "Notes from a Meeting with Kekaha kupuna regarding the concept of the proposed open ocean fish farm, which were used to obtain input on traditional perspectives and cultural issues," 2002. Kona !Blue Water Farms (KBWF), Final Environmental Assessment for An Offshore Open Ocean Fish Farm Project off Unualoha Point, Kona, Nawai `i, 2003. Kosaki, Richard H., Konohiki Fishing Rights, Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau, Report 1954, No. Kotzebue, Otto von 1821. A Voyage of Discovery into the South Sea and Bering Straits ... in the Years 1815-,1818. Longman, Hurst, London. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968. The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854: Foundation and Transformation. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. La`au, Eddie "Lala", Interview about the Pu`u Ulaula/Black Point area of North Kohala ocean area on July 3, 2008 with David Tarnas in Hawaii Oceanic Technology Proposed Ahi Aquaculture Farm North Kohala Ocean Lease Site Cultural Impact Assessment, prepared by MCS International for Hawaii Oceanic Technology, December 2008. La`au, Eddie "Lala", Interview published in "Kawaihae, Hawaii, Hawaiian Islands" in the Pacific Worlds Indigenous Geography Education Project website, 20041ocated at http~//www pacificwor]ds.com/kawaihac/sea/fishina.cfm Mackenzie, Melody, Native Hawaii Rights Handbook, Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation 1991 Malo; David. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities (Mo`olelo Hawai`i). Translated by N. B. Emerson. Second Editi~in. Bishop Museum Special Publication 2. Honolulu, Hawaii. O O C Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 50 of 122 O Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai'a A Me Na Ko `a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. O Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, He Mo `olelo `Aina: A Cultural Study of the Pu `u o 'Umi Natural Area Reserve and Kohala - Hamakua Mountain Lands, District of Kohala and Hamakua, Island of Hawaii., prepared for Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Natural Area Reserve Program, 2004. Maly, Kepa, translations of the He Moolelo no Makalei, for UH-Department of Urban and Regional p Planning (UH-DURP). 2005. Maly, Kepa, translations of testimonies from Land Court proceedings regarding ahupua`a for North Kohala, for UH-Department of Urban and Regional Planning (UH-DURP). undated. ~ Manu, Moke et al, Hawaiian Fishing Tradition, Kalamaku Press, Honolulu, 1992 Maztin, Lynn, Nk Paniolo o Hawaii, Honolulu Academy of Arts 1987 Meller, Norman, Indigenous Ocean Rights in Hawaii, UH Sea Grant, December 1985. UNIHI - ~ SEAGRANT MP-86-O1 Menzies, Archibald, Hawaii Nei 128 years Ago. W.F. Wilson, Honolulu.1920 Murakami, Alan, "Konohiki Rights and Marine Resources" in Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook (Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie, Ed), Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, 1991. O National Park Service (NPS), National Register of Historic Places, accessed on September 1, 2008 from the website htto://www.cr.np~ov/nr/ Newman, T. Snell, Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Lsland of Hawaii in A.D. 1778, Hawaii O Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, 1968. OEQC, Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control, Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts, Adopted by the Hawaii Environmental Council on November 19, 1997. ~ Park, Peter Keikua`ana Pazk, "Fisheries of the Kaloko-`O`oma- Kalaoa Vicinity of North Kona, Hawaii, November 2"`~, 2002 and January 14`h 2003" -with Kepa Maly in Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai `a A Me Na Ko `a O Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. ~ Parker, Patricia and Thomas King, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, National Park Service, 1998. Paulo, Walter Keli`iokekai Paulo, "Fishing Customs and Fisheries of Kapalilua, South Kona: The Wai'anai- Kona Coast of Oahu; and the North western Hawaiian Islands, July 14`h, 2002 and March 5, 2003 at Miloli `i" with Kepa Maly in Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai'a A Me Na Ko `a O ~ Na Kai `Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Q Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 51 of 122 Pearson 1968, "Excavations of Lapakahi, North Kohala, Hawaii Island - 1968." Hawaii State Archaeological Journal 69-2. Division of State Pazks, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. Portlock, Nathanial, 1789 A Voyage Round the World...in 1785, 1786, 1787 and 1788..., John Stockdale and George Goulding, London. Punihaole, Robert Ka`iwa and Hanohano Punihaole, Lands, Fisheries and Customs of the Familes of the Kekaha Region in North Kona, Hawaii March 6`h and 19`h, 2003, with Kepa Maly in Maly, Kepa and Onaona Maly, Ka Hana Lawai `a A Me Na Ko `a O Na Kai 'Ewalu, A History of Fishing Practices and Marine Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, The Nature Conservancy, 2003. Richards, Monty, Interview about Ki`iokalani and the Pahinahina lease area on June 30, 2008 with David Tarnas in Hawaii Oceanic Technology Proposed Ahi Aquaculture Farm North Kohala Ocean Lease Site Cultural Impact Assessment, prepazed by MCS International for Hawaii Oceanic Technology, December 2008. Rizzuto, Jim, Fishing Chronicles, Volume 4/5, ""Big Eye for Sisco Kid Angler Benefits from Thurner's Multipurpose Substitutions" accessed at www.mazlinhookers.con~/joomla/, 2007. Schilt, Rose and Aki Sinoto, 1980. Limited Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of Mahukona Properties, North Kohala, Island of Hawaii. Report on file, Depaztment of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum. Schweitzer, Sophia and Michael Gomes, Kohala Aina, Mutual Publishing Co., Honolulu, 2003. Shon, Jim, Hawaii Constitutional Convention Studies, 1978, Article X, Article XI (Honolulu: Legislative Reference Bureau 1978) in Meller, 1985. Soehren, Lloyd, 1969. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Parker Ranch Coastal Lands, North Kohala. In Archaeology on the /sland of Hawaii, edited by R.J. Pearson, pp. 15-24. Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series, No. 3, Social Science Reseazch Institute, Honolulu. 1969. Sylva, Robert, Captain of Thrillseeker, located at the Thrillseeker Sportfishing website, www konah~waiisportfishina com/update/forecast html Tomonari-Tuggle, Myra 7.F. 1981. North Kohala: Perception of a Changing Community. Report on file, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. Tomonazi-Tuggle, Myra J. 2002. The US Army in Hawaii: An Historic Context for Cultural Resources on US Army Garrison, Hawaii Installations. Prepared for CEMML and U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii. Tuggle, H. David and P. Bion Griffin (eds.) Lapakahi Hawaii: Archaeological Studies, Asian and Pacific Archaeological Series, No. 5. Social Science Research Institute, Honolulu. 1973. UH-Department of Urban and Regional Planning (DURP). 2005 North Kohala Coastal Cultural Resource and Heritage Study, collection in Bond Memorial Library, Kapaau, Hawaii. Cultural /mpact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 52 of 122 0 Vancouver, George 1967: A Voyage of Discovery in the Years of 1790, 1791, 1793, 1794 and 1795. Three vols. Da Capo Press, New York. O Von Holt, Pono and Angie Von Holt, Interview about Ki`iokalani and the Pahinahina lease area on June 17, 2008 with David Tamas in Hawaii Oceanic Technology Proposed Ahi Aquaculture Farm North Kohala Ocean Lease Site Cultural Impact Assessment, prepared by MCS International for Hawai `i Oceanic Technology, December 2008. O 10 10 10 10 O O O O Cultural Lmpact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 53 of 122 I1.0 'APPENDIX A: Coov of Roval Patent 7216 to for Ki`iokalani ahunua`a O ,, ,~ . ,~ '~,'F ~"~ ;. ;' y .,w~ { ~ .~ c.-Y........ . i - O e ::x Y;' _. :;~ ,~ ~„ ~~~ c c Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 54 of 122 C O O O d I~ O 10 O O O 0 Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 55 of 122 12.0 APPENDIX B TRANSCRIPTS OF ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS: Interview Transcription William Akau June 18, 2008 at Kawaihae with David Tarnas Cultural Impact Assessment far Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 56 of 122 0 DT: So I appreciate that today, let's see it's June 18, 2008. I'm here with William Akau. William Ahyou Akau. O WA: Chinese DT. Well, that's it, you're a cosmopolitan man. WA: My dad is Chinese-Hawaiian. My mom is Irish-Hawaiian. So we get a little of Chinese and a little ~ of Irish. More Hawaiian. DT: You've been able to make things grow here that most people would never be able to. WA: Over here is all rock. ~ DT: No soil it's just all rock. WA: That's why a lot of trees here never really grow here, it just all dried up. A lot of trees died already. The roots cannot penetrate down. It just kind of dries up. ~ DT: I guess that was the technique for growing on the coast in the makai dry area was to build up a mound of rock and then try to make a little bit of soil to grow things in because it couldn't grow anywhere else WA: But if the weather it always cool and always have rain, no trouble, things going to grow. But over Q here the roots cannot penetrate down. Makes it hard. Waimea has a lot of dirt, alright to grow. DT: Well, it looks like you've been keeping yourself healthy. WA: Well l have to, no choice. Once a year or twice a yeaz I go to Honolulu get my checkup. My ~ doctors tell me if anything happens go here, but for the regular checkup down here cuz I had operation and all that all in Honolulu. We have a place in Honolulu, too, right in town righC close to Queen's hospital. If anything happens we go down there and go right to the doctor there. There aze a lot of specialist doctors too. Up here they're just general. They are going to refer you to this, might as well go to Honolulu, and get the check up. ~ DT: So your family goes back a long ways here in Kawaihae in this area. WA: Yeah, goes back to... we are 5`h generation. Me, my dad, my grandfather, my great grand father, my great great is Chinese. So that's how we started but then on the Hawaiian side we always been here. O DT: It's always been... what family was the Hawaiian family, what were the names? WA: On the Akau side... We're supposed to go, our great grandfather, instead of going by Ching, we went Akau. So he dropped Ching off. All the Ching family in Kohala, all same family. So all Chinese- Hawaiian. Then my mom is from Kohala. She is half Irish and half Hawaiian. So all Hase family. O They all moved out anyway, hardly any family in Kohala now. DT: So you're one of the eldest in the Akau family here, because there aze quite a few Akau's. ~ Cultural /mpact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 57 of 122 WA: Oh yeah, Waimea quite a bit. DT: Andrew, Alex... WA: Yeah, but Andrew them, Alex them ... they come from the second batch of my great grandfather. We came from the first marriage of our great grandfather. That's how it works, but we are still family. Only different mother. DT: (Describes proposal for open ocean aquaculture project). WA: Did they figure to put some samples in the ocean and do all the study to see how it works? DT: They are doing the analysis of the currents right now. That's part of the environmental assessment they are doing right now. WA: Ok. Cause if you go to Red Hill or Black Point, you can see that the current kicks it up. 'Cause it whirls around and it goes back against the north current and then it starts whirling back again and goes south and then around... so it goes like that. So right here it's always active. The whole bottom because of the current it plays around there and then we go. DT: What I'm interested in is what's your sense of the traditional and cultural uses of this area out here... this, in the ocean three miles offshore, from Malae Point? WA: Get no idea what was there before. Only thing we know is how the current whirls within the bay. How that part, usually they always bang together, you get a drop current and then a sound, so they always...the action is always banging together. It's always going to be like that no matter what, you see. But in Kawaihae it's one way going, you see. In the middle is dead. So the thing that gets the top part of the ocean move it is the wind and the current from north hits south goes north and always like that . It's not going to come on the whole dead area. No, it always kicks out. DT: So coming up from the south to Kawaihae, you have a current coming in here this way WA: Inshore DT: Inshore, coming up this way. WA: It comes all the way from down Makalawena, goes out there, because the drop current hits the bank and then the action is down there, over, out, and in. Then it whirls in and goes up there where Black Point or beyond that, then it hits the current again, then it whirls over there, then it kicks out, move around. DT: So it's coming north here... Black Point is over here WA: Just passed where Kohala Ranch is, just beyond that... DT: Just beyond Kohala Ranch. And so at that point, the current which is moving from the south to the north takes out. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 58 of 122 0 O O 10 IO 0 WA: Hits what you call a drop current like that, they start fighting each other and whirling up there. And when they are fighting, when the south is stronger then they get in tune, the drop current go south and then they whirl around. DT: The studies that are showing that right now, it's a really dynamic area out here, how the ocean moves. But I was trying to learn the uses of this deep area out here, in terms of fishing or gathering. I haven't found anybody that really uses that for fishing, they fish elsewhere, but not in this general area 3 miles offshore Malae. WA: Usually in the April months you get the aku the ahi, all the things that coming in, so you find them within that area, south, goes north, some goes out, some just whirls within. It's a lot of feed too, that's why they hang around. Because if they go south in that area, they cannot live or survive in that dead azea, because nothing there. So that's why they hang close aoound the edge of the current and move. DT: Mostly is it neazshore... do you think most of the fishing activity is closer to shore? WA: Oh say about quarter mile, half a mile off. It's good for handling deep sea. For weke and stuff like that it s about 35-40 fathoms. Then you go for kalekale and opakapaka about 60. Then ulaula is about 80, 9Q all depends. Down there a lot of feed on the ground that's why it's an active area. Then you come Kawaihae, nothing. DT: Do you know of any fishery that's tazgeted at the depth of about 220 fathoms, or in that general area, couple hundred fathoms, 200, 300 fathoms. WA: You know University of Hawaii had those two ships that stayed here for months. From Kawaihae all the way up to what was Midway, So directionally, they go back and forth, hit Kawaihae. So they tell you, because the people use to come up, they used to talk story, some of them were family, they tell you in the boat they get a big glass cage with water running inside, it's all what they pick up outside in the deep. So what they say is because in the dead area, no circulation, so the fish... so they pick up all these little different species that you find along the shoreline. So the study they know what's what. Because you don't find that in other places, because the current just pushes away, because it's odor is dead, so they just hang around. DT: Yeah, sort of a gyre. They just hang out right in that area. And the gyre will move, depending on... O WA: North, South. Because the seasons, winter months you get lot of storms and all that kind. The summer months quiet. You see those days we don't think about that we just go out fishing, we know this area is no good, we gotta go that area, because usually we go south or we go north. So out Black Point, around that azea is good for wekeula. And you go little more, between Black Point and Mahukona, O good. And you go further up and is good too but there is only thing: high surf. DT: Past Mahukona. WA: One time we got trouble there, we drifted all the way to Maui... ~ DT: Whoa! WA: The engine was dead that's why. We anchored and fish would start biting, but the winds start coming, that's when the anchor came out. When I start the engine, I went down, so we put sail, try sail p Cultural LmpactAssessmentfor Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 59 of 122 C back here, cannot, so we drift, drift then turn around. We went go down. When we go down, I went go rest, come back, then something tell me, the flywheel, get little holes on it, so we get the straight gap, stick `em in, crank `em. Won't start up, so we went to Maui. So fishing is good, but only thing, you gotta be careful because when the wind start blow, you better get ready to get out there. DT: When you went north, so if you were heading from Kawaihae north, did you tend to stay close to shore? Basically as you were saying, the weke is 40 fathoms or even out to 90 fathoms, for the ulaula. WA: Because the current, when the current is dead, you cannot fish. They're not around. The current gotta be really soft and pulling in a north or south. So that's where... sometimes go north, nothing, maybe south is better. All us guys south. You gotta be fast, when they're tired just come in. When they start really biting, gotta do all you can. When they stop, you gotta wait, gonna be long time before they start over again. DT: Well mostly along the shoreline it's a south to north current. That's pretty steady. WA: But sometimes strong. Your light cannot get down. Just stay on the surface. Sothis kinda stuff DT: When you would go out for ahi or aku, let's say in April, where would you tend to go? WA: Up that area. DT: Would you stay relatively close to shore or would you go further offshore? WA: Oh, maybe about, say about 200 feet. Just not way out. You see the birds where they eat. When you see way out, means they are going with the current. Maybe current moving north, they going south, they going against the current. So you can see the birds whirling and moving, so you know they going over there. So no sense you go in. If the current is too strong, they going move anyway, because they cannot just cruise around because it's bad for them. If they swimming around and they go wrong direction, the water get into their gills and some of them maybe they get in trouble. So they always go with the current. Even when they feeding you can see them go up. They don't go this way, they don't turn around and face their back in the current at all. Always face head into current. So you can see that, and you can see how the birds go. When you see that you know they are going. You cannot do nothing. You see the birds they whirl and whirling. Sometimes they not on top but they underneath, but the birds can see them moving. DT: Well I took your advice and I did go talk to Monty Richards about this, because it is that ahupua'a. He said, "I guess I am the konohiki." WA: That's right! DT: And I talked to him about the project and he thought it was a good idea. WA: Good you talked to him. No sense put them on the side because they the land owner and they kama'aina. Work together. Make them feel good, you feel good, everbody feel good. But if you shut them off, trouble. DT: Well I talked to Pono, as well I was talking to Pono and Angie. Because Pono, they are close to Kahua, right? Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 60 of 122 0 O WA: Their part is more to Mahukona side. I think Kahua is from more Kohala Ranch goes to Black Point or something like that. DT: Pono told me that right at Malae is where they both have land. And I was able to talk to both of them. WA: Good to get the information on the history of the various places of where people used to live O because over there, the ahupua'a is narrow, but because makau-makai, all the way up like that. You get all the way to what they call Pololu, that kind, where they set up, so Kahua goes to Mahukona, I think. Parker Ranch is mauka. DT: And there is a little piece that is Kamehameha Schools, Bishop Estate, that is just a little north of O Malae. WA: Black Point DT: There is a holua that Pono was telling me that Andrew Akau and a group are doing a project there, an educational project with kids to restore the holua that's located there. So Pono suggested that I get a ~ hold of Andrew and talk to him about it, but I guess it is ali'i land in that area, so there is a settlement and they have a holua that they are going to restore right now. WA: I went down there one time. We went looking around. Then right over there is Keawanui. A long bay. 10 DT: Keawanui right here, just north of Malae. WA: Right !, ~ DT: And that's where I guess that holua is. WA: Oh yeah, you go, there's a gate, I think goes in, you drive down and right on the top, people go in like that. ~ DT: l wonder did the holua go all the way into the water? WA: That I don't know. DT: I can talk to Andrew. ~ WA: Yeah. Talk to Andrew. They just point that thing out to me and I just said "Ohhhh". It's the first time I seen it. DT: That's what Pono said. He never saw it before. © WA: Lucky somebody remembered. DT: Yeah. What were the family names of the families that were in that area. You mentioned Kahua, the kama'aina families, Pono and Monty. Do you remember any other families from that area? G Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 61 of 122 WA: Read the records of the landowners is going to be the only way you know whether they still around. 1 don't know. DT: And Pono didn't know of any either, and he suggested we could do a title search to see if any other names. A lot of it is government land and then Kahua, some Ponoholo Ranch and Bishop Estate. And he said that was their understanding of what, who was there. But I didn't know if there were any other families that are still around that were in that area, or if you knew of any. WA: No, I don't know. DT: That's what... They sold it to Kahua a long time ago WA: They like over there, where you start going to North Kohala, started from this end... Each ahupua' a is kinda narrow and long. Every other one has mauka-makai ala hele road that goes mauka- makai and then meet the ala loa, from here going south right up to where Puuhui from over there goes up and down to Pololu. So that's the mauka side. And then from makai, go mauka to Kawaihae Uka. You cannot cross over because the depth is deep so that's why you gotta go way up, way up then you get two runs of a steam that runs down. One from Kahua coming down, one from Kawaihae Uka. The they meet and get into what you call - Honako`a. So that's why a lot of farmers used to be mauka side Kawai Uka. My dad and grandfather and great grandfather... They all born up there, Kawaihae Uka. So that's why when you fly on the plane and you look down, you can see how it's blocked off, terraced. I was surprised to see that, you know its still there! DT: Yeah. And that came down Honakoa WA: That's right. DT: They join and came down out there WA: That's why Keawewai always running, the water. So the other one from Kahua I don't know too much about that one. So yeah, you talk to Monty, they the ones on the land now, it's their land. DT: And they've given me a lot of good information. And when I talked to Pono, he also said there are some cowboys who have been using for a long time, Ho'opai. So I'm going to talk to them too. WA: Well the cowboys are the ones who helped to build the ranch so they always close. One whole family. So its just the younger generation who went to school and went away and stay away. Just the older ones now, no place to go but stay home. Good you talk to both of them. Because if you talk to other people and bumbai they heaz, they say, "What's going on?" You know, disrespect. If you talk to them everything, because no one else know about it, but they the top. Like us we only know a little bit on the ocean side. We used to fish about that azea. But it's good fishing grounds, you know, that area. Because you come back from Mahukona, come this side, between Mahukona and Black Point, outside there, even you go bottom fishing, you go trolling, aku, never miss up there. Good area. DT: But usually it's within 100 fathoms, shallower than 100 fathoms? WA: Well, I never go way out, but it's a fish azea because why would the people live down that area if it's the dead area? It's an active area. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 62 of 122 is IO I~ to DT: I was just trying to understand better if this project site is in the deeper water, they were hoping to avoid the azea where there is fishing. The fishing, they figure, is closer to shore. They aze three miles offshore and most of it is closer from what everyone says. WA: Well you take the reef fish they go out to so many fathoms and pau, and then you get the bottom fishes outside, like kalekale and uku and all those other ones, they at certain depth, then you go onaga or oponui, they go deeper water, and beyond that I don't know. There be, well, the ahi usually come in shallow water, too. They whirl azound, the aku come in. But bottomfish they stay put in area. Because you got the currents too. If the current too strong they cannot feed, so if get the high banks out there then they always have a protected area because current goes over. DT: And then here there's not... it's pretty flat out here. You're at 198, 220, 222... it's just a flat azea going out here for a long ways. So here's shallow: 30, 40, 60, 80 fathoms and then it hits about 100 fathoms, then to 200... and then it stays between 200, 300, slowly here to 400. So it's really quite gentle. So that's why they picked the site here, because its outside the main fishing grounds, because the main fishing grounds would be, from what we understood, were in closer to shore herein 100 fathoms or less. ~ WA: Closer inside is all reef, then bottomfish go out to something there, then outside is nothing. Maybe you get what you call fish move by the current, so if that.. feeding ground usually close to shore, you get piha, wehu, and all that. They're inshore. DT: What do you think a project like this, where you have all these large cages underwater offshore in p this area... Do you think it would cause interference with any traditional activities or cultural activities, having these cages offshore, from your perspective? WA: Well nobody done that before, the Hawaiians didn't do that. They usually stay close where they can manage...outside because outside the current is too strong. You go out you only gotta drop one ~ time. If you make it, you make it. If you don't make it, you gotta go two or three times because too deep. See that's what certain... was they go if they really want to get onaga, the one with the long tail, red snappers. Oponui is a little bit inside, the onaga is way out, deep as can be... DT: About how deep is the onaga usually? ~ WA: Roughly about 200 feet. DT: Ah. WA: Beyond that, because there's no feeding azea for them. Usually the shallow azea is you get more Q feed In the deeper area you just get water just going through, that's all. It's got cold water passing through. So to grow things you'd rather have things more on the cool side of the water, so things grow. If too warm, then just cool down. Well that's good you folks making study up there. Try out cages there. Not going to interfere with trolling boats and stuff like that? C~ DT: Well, that's the idea is that they are far enough offshore that they shouldn't interfere. That's why I'm asking you, being that if it's located out here, the trolling boats would tend to be, as you were saying, closer to shore, half-mile offshore. So that's why they picked it out here, so it wouldn't interfere with them. Who would you suggest that I go talk to about any of the fisherman who use it. O Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 63 of 122 WA: Well the fishermen have an association, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not involved with those anymore. Before, with part of it used for our living, but then I retired. New generation come in. Whether they commercial fisherman or just plain fisherman, but it's good to talk to them... DT: I will... WA: Because if something they don't like, they going speak up. If it's better fish for everybody, hey why not? Because you gonna have fish all the time. Because they gonna feed them, so a lot of other things going come. If sharks and stuff will come around, that's another story... It's up to them to figure out what they can do. But other than that, if they do something, they'll work together with the commercial fisherman, the community... because if it's working. Like Kona Blue, I'm sure it's working. The one in Honolulu, I think they are all working. DT: The one in Honolulu, the moi farm over there? WA: It's working? DT: Yep. WA: So they gotta find place where it's more or less safe. If put equipment in the water, there's going be wash away or current just push it away... So they make all the study, is it safe, steady current, how fast they pulling, so over there is the place. Because I think if you go inside the water is not as cold, too warm, so that's why they pick that place because the current is always moving. DT: Steady current. And that's what they need. WA: Well you have to because if you have a house, and in the room you don't have a fan, you gonna sweat all the time. DT: Stagnant... WA: Yeah! (laugh)... So, that's good. How would that affect the pleasure boats and all that running around there. Would that create a problem for them? DT: What we're looking at is the area that's right over the cages, we'd have buoys. So we'd ask the boats not to go over it, but anywhere outside is fine. It wouldn't interfere with the transit of vessels, it would just be an area that would be here so that's part of what we are doing in the EA is looking at, where is the traffic in this area? WA: Mostly up here. DT: The traffic is closer to shore? WA: Yeah. DT: And then the barge comes in offshore. So we've got the vessels trolling and pleasure craft going closer to shore, all of them within one mile. Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 64 of 122 0 WA: Yeah, that's right. DT: And then the barges that are about 6 miles. So this area is right in between. So far, from what we O have learned is that it should be out of the way. WA: Once you get everything all approved and set, then everybody know what's there. If you just go and drop something there that nobody know, then they get into trouble. But it's good. O DT: Sure, they'll have to get talking and making sure that everyone knows. And I will talk to the fisherman's association here. WA: From where they going to operate from, Mahukona to that area? O DT: Kawaihae WA: From Kawaihae going move up? DT: Kawaihae commercial harbor. So they talked to Ian Birnie and made sure there was space in there for them and for their operation and so they would come out of Kawaihae, come up to Malae to the farm to work, and then back to Kawaihae. So that would be the idea. The only shore-based operation is Kawaihae. WA: I wonder if it is the same outfit I know some time back... They wanted to use the warehouse, but somebody is in there now. I don't know if it got going. 10 DT: Oh, you mean the onshore operation here, the warehouse? WA: Yeah, right inside the warehouse. See somebody is fixing it up, and that's why lot of things that took place there they had to move out. Because there's two building over there... the old one and then O the new one. I think somebody already have one, i think. And then this one down here they going take them down. DT: So they'll have to work with Ian Biernie to make sure they've got their place. They've talked to him already. Ian said there was sufficient space for them. So that's the idea. The shore-based operation O would be in Kawaihae Commercial Harbor, go service the cages up here off Malae, and then back to Kawaihae. That would be the only harbor so they wouldn't use Mahukona, just Kawaihae. WA: But you don't know the best place, if they can't work it out. If Keawanui, a deep bay. It's right next to Kamehameha Schools propoerty. Over there is good. It's a safe place. It goes up quite far outside. They can dredge inside and make nice piers and stuff like that, where you can go check the O cages and then come back in instead of travel from Kawaihae up there... But they still can make a road that you can make a ramp and still use boats to go check these things out. DT: That's a good idea. O WA: Much cheaper that way. DT: A lot closer... O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 65 of 122 WA: Yeah, because you wouldn't want to check, but when you going to do the real thing, hazvest it, all that, then or something else... You need a bigger boat to take all what you can and then bring it in and go through the whole process. DT: Well, that's a good suggestion. I'll keep that in mind. I was noticing when I was out there that people use the shoreline now for camping, for shoreline fishing... that's primazy use of the area there. WA: Well you see that's the state, Land and Natural Resources, the Fish and Game you might say... They're supposed to put signs and all that, tell the people, but you don't see any signs and people just go and do what they want to do and you get all paddleboads and stuff like that... they go all over. They're supposed to keep the reef in top shape, don't interfere with the growth of the reef fish. But you get all that back and forth, back and forth. What the state is doing, they're not doing their job, they are to protect the natural resources of the island. So when it's time for hazvest, harvest. When it's time for rest, rest. See that these things are in place, but now you get all kind stuff going on. It's kinda hard. Just like now if you folks going put that, if you get lot of people going up there running their craft in and outta there, it's not good. It's gotta be in order because the state is allowing you folks to do that. Ok, you folks have the right, so the state should do something about all the commercial fisherman, the private fisherman who go in that area, and keep out of this kind area, keep off the shallow reef, or doing this kinda thing... no one doing that, so you go look the shoreline and what you used to see in the past so plentiful, now there's nothing... Just like right by the heiau go down... Every season, the mating season, the spawning season, all that. Then when they start spawning, all the young ones come in, and they grow up, and then at certain size, then they move on. It's the thing that rotates year after year. But see today they don't see that, they don't protect that. So what we gonna have tomorrow, nothing. You look Pelekane, they all coming up. So it's really hard. Because if you don't... just like the `ahi... if you don't take care of the `ahi, that they come in, spawning and all that, how can they come back in? No more. So that's why everybody's supposed to work together. It's everybody's benefit, not one person. DT: What's your sense of... or what's your perspective on this open-ocean aquaculture? You know we've got the project in Kona, the project on Oahu, and now this proposed project here. What's your perspective on it as a future activity for Hawaii? WA: Well, some places is making a go of it, some countries. Because this thing they not just start here... they start in other countries. In Japan they really progress here on it. So if it's worked there, why can't it work here? So we gotta try. So that's what this is all about. So you pick the spot, so you figure that's the best place to start. So where else can you go next, that is future. If this Ching works good here, then you have other places you can go. DT: That's it. We've got to give it a try. And that's really going to be a pilot project here just to make sure that it works. And then if it can work, we'll show that it works and then we can do it other places here. WA: But you take Kona, then it goes all the way down... So much things going on, kinda hard... Over here, lucky, not that much now, but then we get too much hotels... all the golf course fertilizers get in the ocean, so that's the state's responsibility. DT: If you look at the land use mauka of Malae, it's all area that is Kahua and that's their place primarily. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 66 of 122 0 WA: That's right. Is no development... only Kahua have Kohala Ranch that's the only place. Pono has no development in his area. Because you take Kohala, Kohala is going down. People is moving out, so even if they put some kind of thing in there, property, how you going to get the workers. The workers Q azound, so to start off you have nothing, so better stick to ranching. DT: Any last advice you want to give to me or to the company as they're looking at doing this project? WA: I'm sure they picked the right place. The wind is not as, that strong, you might say. Because that's O where most of the fishermen, know better where on this island, when they headed down to Kawaihae, they head up this direction. They don't head all the way to Mahukona but right between Mahukona and Kawaihae, so that seems to be best area for fishing, so that's why you folks choose that area, because everything is there, because they can put the cage and grow those things. But it would help out all this other flshermens because the feed will always go and other fish will get hold of that and stick around O and mill around those cages or whatever. You should think about the feed that they use is not going to just stay in there, it's going to wash through and so get out and the fish will constantly get the taste and the smell of it. They always will head that direction. When we go out, we go deep sea fishing, we always put palu in da kine. We always take out the palu, spread out, fish come in... the same thing. You gonna put something permanent in over there, fish always going to be go there. Whether you like it or not, they going there. They get feed. So that's the key thing. They putting up a cage not feeding the O fish, don't make sense. And where they going put their headquarters, they already have a place? DT: Well, if they get their ocean lease, they want to have their headquarters in Kawaihae Harbor here, and also use Hilo Hazbor. O WA: They can ship them off in Hilo... DT: That's right, they can fly them out of Hilo airport. Because I think they'll probably air freight them, once they're processed. I~ p WA: You know Hilo was just like the king of fishing. Used to be choke fishing boats in Hilo. Then everything went down. Aku, couple aku boats there, loaded with aku. No more here. Same thing Kawaihae. But everything is there already, just people retired, move away, and then next generation doesn't care too much about going through that life, find something better. But it is important because that's what feeds the community as a whole... You have to have those kinda things... improve, make it O better. Going out day and night fishing... this thing you trap and you feed them, you grow them... DT: I was amazed to read the stories about the huge fishponds that Hawaiians had made in the Kona area, where they would actually capture the fish and then grow them out in the fishpond so it was like your freezer. O WA: Yes because the winter months, rough you cannot fish, so you have that... storage. Over there you get Kona, the all the way up the shoreline, there a lot I remember Kalahuipua`a, they had about five fishponds. So every year during the spring, April, all the young ones come in and start growing up inside Pelekane, so we used to get to the side, we'd pick up, we'd load up on the boat, we'd drive them down, we'd stock the ponds. Every year you gotta do that because when you take out you gotta put back, that's O how. And that's the style of the past. So you always gotta balance that things move on, everybody forgot about it. Even now I don't know where they bring in the new stock. DT: I don't know... to stock the Kalahuipua`a pond? I don't know what they use to stock those ponds. Q Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 67 of 122 WA: Oh yeah, because before they used to get them here by the heiau. Every yeaz come in. You cannot do the thing anymore. They gotta come from out in, start the process, lay their eggs and whatever, then it grows up and then put inside and move on. DT: Yes WA: So when it comes in, you take what you need, put in the pond, and the rest go out. Even in the whole coastline, the big kinda rivers that were on the side. But the old timers, they pass on and the younger generation say, "Ack, forget about it". But then when people come in, the study is very important. But see nobody been keep up so they have to start all over again. And then just like experiment, they gotta find the right answer to things. But you've got the past generation keep on carrying on so you don't have to. You could get information from them and move on. I used to do that every year. Go to Pelekane, load up the skiff, take them to pond. Then Parker Ranch used to do the same thing. My grandfather used to put the stuff in the pond right next to where we used to live. Then every year when Parker Ranch takes out the fish from Anaehoomalu for the party and stuff like that then they come here ready, so they transport this here over to the pond and they grew up. Then you came from the ocean, you raise it up again. But everything is on the shelf. Nothing Gazed for. DT: So I guess this project is the next generation, where you're trying to cultivate the fish... It's an agriculture operation, really. And that's why Monty and Pono could relate to it because their ranching experience. This is sort of ranching in the ocean. WA: That's right. Because everything is there now to bring them together because it's a seasonal thing... So the time is up, they move out-- you've got nothing. So if you going to raise them continuously, you will always have something, and that brings the outside reef fish closer to the cages with the feed. So all that is right to do a lot of things. Lotta people will disagree, but eh, lot of countries are doing it and it's working. Why can't we do it? DT: It does work in other countries, that's true. And they've shown that it can work here, with the project in Kona and the project on Oahu. WA: They already started, so you know. And plus the cold water from the bottom ocean and use all that, lotta things they did. DT: Well this one will be unique just because it is out in deep water, so it isn't in any of the trolling areas. It's using technology that's been around but no one's applied it to a fish farm. Because they've been doing OTEC for years. And now they're going to apply it to this. WA: Well they came across that...Using the cold water works. So same thing, you folks planning to do this and put it there, it works because other places is doing it. It's just that maybe it's too expensive and all that, you know, to put this thing together. But once you get them in place and that thing work out no problem. DT: Some people have said just make sure you are nowhere near any fishing ko`a, and at 220 fathoms, there's nothing... what you've told me confirms what I've heazd from others. Is that fishing is much closer to shore. Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 68 of 122 ~o IQ 9 WA: Because it's just like... putting a bag of feed in that area, who you going feed? You going feed what's around there, but you folks' cages where they going pick certain ones and then raise them in the cages, yeah? DT: We'd be actually raising ahi in a hatchery on land. They are actually going to just catch the brood stock ahi in Hawaiian waters, have them spawn, then grow the small fry to a certain size. Then take those out into the cages, and grow them out to mazket size. WA: But that you can do in one year? So you really gotta have lots of eggs in order to... DT: Well, they produce a lot of eggs in spawning, as they've learned in Panama, where they're doing a lot of work on this, and in Japan. O WA: Panama? DT: Yeah, Panama's been doing a lot of work on the hatcheries for tuna. WA: Yeah I know because twenty or thirty years ago we took a trip and went all through there. ~ DT: You did? O WA: When my dad and mom retired, we traveled all through South America, go Panama. DT: That would have been an adventure. WA: Well they already done it. So even though Hawaii isn't near where they do that in Panama, so now Hawaii is starting. But that's alright, because it works. It works. But the thing is too expensive if you don't have the backing. Then Chat's a problem, you see, finances. But if you have that, then the future is always there. So public still going eat `ahi, so it makes it easy. You raise it, you sell it. Before you ~ have to go in the wild and hunt for `em deep down. Like in Hilo there're a lot of boats, but when the waz stop and all that, everything went down. You don't see that no more. Kona the same thing. So `ahi hasn't been brought in from this island. Kona, Hilo, nothing. Because everything, especially the old timers, most of the Japanese fishermen. They get old. Pau. Hang up. Their children wouldn't go back to do what they was doing. But that's life, so now they're starting up this. Maybe this is easier. Sitting ~ there, feed it, grow up, harvest. But only thing you gotta be sure, the storm. That's the thing. DT: There's plenty of risk. WA: But if everything goes smooth, no trouble. ~ DT: You know because the fisheries... the stocks of the wild fish are dep]eted so much that if we're going to produce enough protein for the community and feed the community then we need some other way to do it. WA: That's right. Well, as the world moves on all the little things start putting together and they start ~ up experiments, most time it works. Japan had it, China had it. Only we didn't have it because we go out in the wild and hazvest everything. But after all this taking, what have we? Nothing, you see. But if we raise it, grow it, we have something. Always. On storage. O Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 69 of 122 DT: That's right. WA: Because I'm sure they made a study of it and they agree that this is the place DT: They actually... the alternative site is in Kona, offshore Keahole, but it's a much busier place. Lots more activity there and potential for conflicts of use. WA: Well you blame the state for not controlling it. You know if they put some kind of control on it, it'd be alright because when you get so many boats going back and forth, you disturb the growth of the shoreline, the fishes and stuff like that. You only busy watching, but you need to put that on the fish because that is food for you. But no they take the money and they do this, they do that. All the small kind paddling, the modern things going on, the kayaks. You go down here by the canoe club, loaded with that. Running on the reef, you know the reef is for the reef fish to live and to grow. That's food for the public. They only think for themselves. What they wanna do? They wanna exercise. What you can do, exercise somewhere else, where? They're there to show off! Show off... DT: My exercise is doing chores at my house WA: Oh yeah. DT: But you really have done just amazing here. Even though there's no soil here, what you've been able to grow. WA: What can we do? We gotta get our place to live, to grow. DT: Oh sure, make some of your own food, you got fruit trees. WA: Wel] we used to live below. It was nice. Because of the development of Kawaihae, they all gotta get out there, so they said we move here, above the road here,. But most of the people, wasn't the Hawaiians. They Chinese, Japanese. So they cannot get Hawaiian Homes land. So they pack up and leave. DT: So is this Hawaiian Homes? WA: All Hawaiian Homes. From the bridge up here, all the way goes to Kohala Ranch. It's all Hawaiian Homes, goes all the way up mauka. But Hawaiian Homes another thing. Too much restriction. You know a lot of people do a lot of talking, this, that. Oh you gotta do this, you gotta do that... they get confused and the first thing they say is, "Forget about it" and they just walk away. DT: No it is a challenge... Well I'm glad that you're here. This is a good spot. You used to live makai of the road over here? WA: Yeah, the road goes down into the harbor, where that...the house where the guard stay. Right over there's where our home was. DT: That's where your home was. WA: My grandfather bought it right by the fish mart. But it's all gone. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 70 of 122 to 10 10 10 10 10 10 O O DT: Things change... Well, if it's ok, I'll come back and keep you posted on this project as it goes along. WA: Give me a call. Yeah. DT: Give you a call. Drop by. Good to come by in the morning when it's nice, cool. WA: This is the thing: if it works elsewhere, it should here too. You gotta try. DT: Step by step, gotta give it a try. WA: That's right. You gonna be out that area anyway... So I think it's a good area. DT: Yeah, step by step. We']1 work on it. O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 71 of 122 0 Interview Transcription Monty Richards June 30, 2008 at Kahua Ranch with David Tarnas 0 0 0 O O O O CulturaUmpact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 72 of 122 ~ io DT: Well, it's June 30`h, last day of June, 2008. MR: Yup, the last day of June. O DT: Last day of June and here we are in the summer of 2008 with Monty Richards up at beautiful Kahua. (David explains the project and the Cultural Impact Assessment to gather information about cultural resources and activities in the project area). I first went to talk to Bill Akau, since he is the old man of the sea down Kawaihae. So I talked to him and he told me his stories about what he knows... O Kawaihae, moving a little bit further north... But he said, "This area... well you gotta go talk to Monty. Monty's the konahiki." He said that. MR: It's interesting because I am. We own the ahupua'a, all the way down, and actually we own three of them: Kahuanui, Kahuo`ili, and Waika, and so being, I guess, owning the upper part and all makes me the konohiki of the whole place, which is fine, that's alright. But anyway... O DT: Ki`iokalani... You also own that ahupua'a. MR: Yeah, and that was... if you'll notice, it comes up to the road here, and some of it was owned by some other members. The ones, the three that I quoted to you, we have Land Court title, to Kahua. Ki`iokalani we did not have Land Court title. DT: The Land Court said Fanny Young... MR: It was not a Land Court Award to Kahua Ranch, so now it may have been Land Courted before, but p at the time we... The reason you've got all these papers (referring to a land exchange with the state for Puaiki) was because: Number 1-the highway went through and so they had to do all of that, and then Number 2- we traded land to the State and one of the remnants that we got was that makai part of Puaiki. So then that had to be authorized and agreed and signed off by the State. Then we decided when Ponoholo and Kahua each went our own way, which we don't go our own way, purely ownership... We O decided alright, we'll put this together and we'll actually subdivide it so that all the percentages of all work out. Because there's nothing historical about this particular line. DT: The line between Ki`iokalani and Puaiki. O MR: That was jiggled so that we ended up with what we have. DT: That was this realignment that you did here... where it was going this way and then slightly moved over. When was the... so this was in... MR: `80s, or something. `81 or something like that. O DT: So that's when you did the separation. O MR: Yeah, and so the State already had given us this, and so that was all squared away but then all we wanted to do was actually, you know, to come up with... Kahua is this side, Ponoholo is this side. DT: What's your memory of Ki`iokalani? Since that had been in Kahua ownership for some time. ~ Cultural /mpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 73 of 122 0 MR: When you see up until the last 20 years. Prior to the building of the Akoni Pule Hwy, that was just land. Bitch to get to. We had jeep roads down there, which people later claimed as old Hawaiian trails, which,was malarkey. It was dry, dusty, hot, and we used to let fisherman go through from up here. They would drive all the way down to the beach. We worked with them. ~ DT: So they would come actually from mauka here. MR: Yeah, before the highway. And they would drive down, so it was just land. People ask me what the larid was used for, I would say, well the only thing I could figure out was its main job was to help to hold the world together. Other than that... DT: So when did the ranch start using it for what it's being used for now, recreational purposes. MR: Well after the road went through, all of a sudden it becomes available. And as beaches become fewer, both by land owners' ability to put up gates and the rest of the crap, and more people. Hey there are not many beaches on this island. Not that there's a beach down here. But we decided, Pono and I, that everybody started piling in and dumping all their trash, and all the rest, so that's why the place is fenced. To hell with them. So we use it for our people, our employees. We maintain peace, Pono maintains peace, we operate as one. Actually the camping site is here, on the Kahua side, not that it matter's they can camp anywhere they want. And they take guests, fine, let us know. So that's how we p use that. Now I will caution you and point out to you that there's a stream, shows it here, but the stream does continue out into this bay, now if that runs water, fresh water... If you're three miles out with your cages,,;fine, how far that exudes out, I don't know. And I don't want to be put into a position, "Well, you must control the water." No. No, no. Because the State claims ownership to the water. The State can worry about. But that's the only thing I can poinC to that would, in any way, have any problem out ~ there. DT: How often have you seen this run in your lifetime? MR: Oh, I've seen it run plenty... it runs fairly often. You'd have to go... because you see, right here, ~ this isi'up above right here, and the stream does run. DT: Does it run through Puaiki or Puanui? MR: Puaiki. DT: So it comes through your place at Puaiki. MR: Yeah. O DT: And it empties into the bay right here. O MR: It can. DT: That's good to know but it's an intermittent stream? MR It's a small intermittent stream and I wouldn't worry about it. O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 74 of 122 ~ 10 DT: But good to know... When I was talking to the Ho'opai family, Kimo was saying that sometimes he would use it, even before the road was put in, but it must have been very difficult to get there? O MR: It was a bitch. The ranch had, I'm trying to think... We had a road that would go here and it went all the way across. And we... the road would go across to Honakoa. But then, then you had to go back a ways, where we're able to get down to Honakoa, and then come up the other side, but all these other things, yeah I remember. O DT: Because that continues all along here... MR: Yeah. That's right. Was there an ancient trail there at one time? Possibly, but I'm not that old. But an awful lot was cleaned up by bulldozers, our dozers. We kept it and that's... O DT: What do you have in terms of, this azea right here... This is one big lease from the State... MR: It was leased from the State. Pahinahina. DT: So you would refer to this as the Pahinahina lease. O MR: Yep. O DT: And, how long has Kahua had this lease from the State? MR: I guess, I don't know, 1930? It's been a long time. DT: And the Ki`iokalani parcel, ahupua'a, Kahua had acquired... MR: I'm not sure whether it was acquired from L.L. McCandless. I think he owned, or his people owned, a chunk of it. And that you can look up and see what it says... O DT: Yeah, I'll do that In terms of the lease for it... you purchased it. Was there interest in acquiring this, because it was one available... MR: I don't know because you take up here. Ki`iokalani is here. ~ DT: Ki`iokalani is here and then it stops. MR: The reason it stops... you notice it doesn't stop here... This is where we exchanged for the State. Where we gave them all this land here for one down here and some of the State land up there. This was the first and until fairly recently, the only land exchange that went through the legislature. You'll find O that this is the first... this is when the legislature was required to bless every exchange made by the State. We were the first to get through and we were probably one of the only to get through. I think you'd have a hell of a time right now. DT: But this one actually went through, this land exchange in 1967, where this parcel was split up and in O exchange with the State of Hawaii. Sothis was one of among several parcels that were exchanged? MR: Yeah, up above, and this was part of it. O Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 75 of 122 0 DT: So was this also having to do with the road? MR: The road was already there, yeah. DT: So the road was there... Do you remember when the road was put in? ~ MR: iJh uh. [No] DT: I can find that out. When the road was put in, they needed to take land, basically from all these parcels, all these ahupua'a. Was that, did they do a land exchange for that how was that...? MR: Now what Kahua did... you've got the road here... Really a funny story. Boss was not, couldn't see this road... I always could. I always thought that it was needed if this island were to grow. And if you were to get value out of your land, then you had to have the work done. So we used to argue, not argue, discuss... The boss was Atherton Richards. Well, the thing was being roughed out and it started from Kawaihae. Of course all that's Hawaiian Homes Land. John Burns was the governor. We went finally, Alec Napier, my boss, gives me a call and says, "Hey Junior... Got a call from the old man..." "Oh yeah, what?" He says, "What's Kahua gonna do about their land. I mean how much they gonna charge for this. ~ Gonna charge a lotta money too. To hell with them." He's gonna stop the job. I knew he could. And L.. He says, "You know how the boss... MR: He says, "What do ya think?" "Go tell the old man dollar." He says, "You sure? Because you know probably going get fired." "Yeah, that's okay, but in the long run for the island, it's needed. It must be done." And he says, "Well okay". O He dial it. And the boss came back, and I'm thinking, "Boy I'm getting my paycheck on the wall for this." He said, "You thought it out?" ~ Yep. "A reason for it?" Same reason I gave you. I said that we're... Hawaii is changing. You've got to be ready to move. By doing!this, the State is going to... you will have helped the State. Why? Because Parker... I mean al] this other land is Parker... Parker's like this... And so the move's ours. So we went for a dollar a year. ~ Now, let me tell you. Now time has moved, the road's gone in. When it comes time to exchange, you see the State fighting us? Came to this parcel down here. DT: Puaiki? O MR: Right next door. Yeah, Puaiki. I said,, "Hey, the guys say you don't need that remnant. May as well take all of the State and the rest of the stuff. You see that?" I said,'"You give me that land, so I get a nice little tie-in piece." You know what the State said? Yes. They take care of you if you took care of them and... There's a p road on through and I said how many right of entries do you need? I don't know I'm not a land owner. Ok, we'll draw in five, six of them, something like that. This is way back down. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculrure Project p. 76 of 122 ~ io They said, "Tell you what we'll do... We just put `em in now. When you sell land, or if you do, you're gong to want to move `em and that kinda stuff, no problem." So the last one came up about three or four year ago. Do you know how the Department of ~ Transportation operates now? You wanna move an easement, they come out, they appraise like this, and then you pay a bunch of money and they permit you to move it. Now Andrew Hayashida, they brought him out of retirement or something and they made him head of the Department of Transportation or whatever it was, if you remember for a short time. Well, once they were able to get through... `Hey, Monty Richards here... Hey, my deal with your boss, John Burns, was this, this, this, this. And ~ I'm here for the last time, the last one. We're gonna want it moved. It's going to cost too much, and everything else. "OK, see what I can do..." So it took a long time. He said, "Monty, you may think I run the depaztment. Bull. All the clerks down there do, but," he says, "I got it through." O DT: Wow, you have a lot of good will there. ID O to 10 MR: You try and you, when you give someone your word, you adhere to that. You don't forget and they won't forget. So I'm a Republican. I salute those guys. They stuck by their word, I always stuck by mine. And made it work. That's probably a lot more than you need to know. DT: Pm very interested in that. It's true. This is an important piece that the State recognized that it was good to exchange to you. So this actually then became part of... MR: It all became one Kahua Ranch. That's the story behind it. DT: So Puaiki mauka of the highway remains on State lease. MR: Yeah, that's right. Puanui is Bishop Estate. Puaiki is State of Hawaii. DT: And Kahua has a lease on the Puaiki mauka of the highway? MR: No we don't have anything. DT: Does anyone? MR: I don't know who has it. Damned if I know. DT: So just this area here. MR: Yeah. It's probably Pazker. O DT: Well this says Kahua, but maybe it's older. MR: Yeah, but see... 10 DT: Oh, this is Ki`iokalani. Puaiki... Yep, Parker. You're right. So it's Parker. SO Parker, the next one, Puanui, is Bishop Estate. MR: Bishop, that's right. O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 77 of 122 IO IO 10 MR: Well there wasn't really a lot that L.. it was mainly fishing, that's all. Even hunting, you know, you never got, there were never pigs and all down here, it's dry. And the goats had not moved over there. There were no wild sheep. DT: Looking at the archaeology, it looks like there's a string of different settlements along here, just small ones... MR: `Cause they had no water. DT: That fits with what you know of it. MR; Yeah. Had no water. Sure during winter time, some of the streams probably flowed down as this upper area was still forested, but there was no permanent type of stream. It was intermittent at best. O And, let me call it fresh, but sure there were, there's water that remained in the pockets, but that's it. DT: So your memory of what you've seen along the shoreline, how would you describe it, in terms of the old historical remains. What would you...? MR: I'd say very little. O DT: So no stories connected with... I remembered stories up here connected with Kamehameha. Do you have any stories down makai? MR: Down makai, there are a couple places, burial caves. And that's about all. And in those days, I'd O been in a few of them. But I wanted no part of them after a while. Let those folks, let them sleep, and I wouldn't go in any anymore. But this whole country down here... Some people try to make it this, that, and the other. Bull. It was dry, it was part of the island, that's it. DT: Was there any stories that you remember in your own life, that you particularly connect to this area. O Stories with importance to Kahua or this area? MR: Ok, the only story that I know, that I can remember, was that I would get a phone call from the police of a tidal wave. Usually around 2 o'clock in the morning, and so Christ, get in your truck... ~ DT: And this is what time period, you're thinking? MR: Let's see. In about the late `SOs early `60s. And they say, "Monty we get tidal wave alert." You know in those days you think, tidal wave alert is not much now, you should know those days. You know, the telephone call, "Hey, you gotta go check if anybody fishing down there." And you think oh, O crap, bouncing all over the pastures... It's a long way down. Bounce, bounce, bounce. And you have to hit down the end over here... DT: So you're coming down here, Ki`iokalani. O MR: Well, not... the road used to come... You used to have to gadung, gadong, gadung... DT: I see. p Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 79 of 122 DT: And then, looks like all of these... There's some Land Court Award, and then there's the State. MR: I'm not familiar with any of those... DT: What's your memory, let's say before the road went in, pretty much this was Kahua and this was Parker? And it was used for pasture when you could? MR: Yeah. Bitch to drive. DT: And not much water. MR: Nope. You had to pipe water. It's the only way water gets down there, by pipeline. DT: You brought a pipeline down into the Pahinahina lease? MR: Yes. DT: In terms of the use of the shoreline and the nearshore ocean, the ocean in front of here... What's your memory of it, in years past, and... MR: Fishing. Yeah, people had to have a boat or a jeep or something to get down there. That's what kept a lot people out. Number 1, of course this day and age, people are lazy. DT: So when you say fishing, what kind of fishing? I've heard stories of others who were describing it, I'm just interested if you have knowledge of any particular types. MR: Not large commercially, if you look at today and all. DT: Would they be relatively nearshore... MR: Well, if they were trolling they're nearshore because the tradewinds, you know the further out you got, the more the trade you picked up. You were protected by the island on the inside. DT: Most of the stories I hear from talking to Bill Akau, or even to the Ho`opai family, they're saying the activity is close to chore. There's shore fishing, gathering, shore casting. The opelu is close to shore, there's still some but it's all pretty close to shore, half mile out at most. MR: Yeah. DT: And then trolling... Bernard Ho`opai was saying in his estimate, they were averaging one mile offshore. Sometimes closer, but not much further. MR: Probably right. No, f agree. DT: Do you know of any stories connected with the land, this area. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 78 of 122 MR: The road would always go, the small inlets, the road would always go down that, because it was easy to make. You sit there, put your spotlight on, looks alright, looks alright. Vrmnmm... You go across, same thing the next one. That's what I remember. DT: And your job was to go down and warn the fisherman, if they were there, the tidal wave was coming. Most of the fisherman, where would they be coming from? Were they related to Kahua Ranch? MR: No, Kohala. And some from Kahua, that had their little jeeps with them. DT: Were there any families, names of people that have used this as a fishing area for a long time? MR: Mostly the name, most like the Ho`opai's, which are all involved in Kahua, and some of the families in Kohala, I've forgotten their names. But it was pretty well protected because the Kohala people could come and all, and nobody really screwed up. DT: Maybe if you could just give me your opinion, your perspective on what something like this, three miles offshore, an agricultural operation like this, growing fish, what potential impact it might have on the cultural activities... Basically your way of life which is the cultural activity for this place. MR: Well, I don't think it would change anything. The only thing that I would... questions I would wonder about would be criminal. Would people try to go get fish out of the trap? Would they use your property, in this case my property, Kahua property to provide an azea for them to get their jeep down, or whatever they're going to do? How is that going to work? How you gonna protect your, that is the fish owners, situation out there? You can handle the boat in, but sometimes the guy has the ability to come in and operate a whole bunch of stuff from the shore. You're better off. A guy can bring a boat in, you can use the, whatever you're going to use, little explosive things, whatever you want. It can be loaded on from shore, you know a boat. I just kinda wonder is that a possibility? I would kinda wonder how that would go. Actually, these aze probably as good a place on shore as you could have to get down into the water. I understand, I realize all is done by boat, and all the rest of it, but I may be having a dirty mind, figuring, how these kids, how some of them are going to take a whack at this. DT: It's good to make sure that we've got that covered. MR: Because it's easy to point out. It's below the surface. Nobody's going to see it at night. DT: Yeah, they'll be noticeable. MR: And you're probably going to have to, how you gonna guazd it? DT: That's a good question, good concern. But overall, you don't think it wouldn't affect... MR: It doesn't affect... DT: It doesn't affect any of the activities that you and your ranch... MR: No, not at all. DT: Because you really are the primazy users of this azea. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 80 of 122 i0 10 10 I~ 10 i0 10 10 O O 10 MR: Yeah. It wouldn't affect at all. DT: And I have talked to the Ho`opai family. Are there other people that you... I talked to you, Pono, Ho`opai, talked to Bill Akau... Who else do you suggest I might talk to who have history in this area on land, or particularly in the ocean? Anybody you can think of? MR: Not right off hand. Old Chuck Paolo, but he's been dead a long time. Used to spend some time, you know, Eddie La`au... You talk to him? DT: Well I'm gonna go talk to Lala. MR: Yeah, Lala. And, that's all. There's not a lot of people that have that much to do. I mean I don't know. There's some guy 18 years old, knows all about the... doesn't count. DT: I'm talking about those that have a long time standing that they were continuing from their father, you know, like you say, La`au, Akau. So those are the ones I'm interested in talking to. MR: OK, I don't see a problem. DT: Thank you for taking the time. I think that's important. MR: Thank you very much. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 81 of 122 Meeting with Pono Von Holt and Angie Von Holt on June 17, 2008 at Ponoholo Ranch headquarters. Interview by David Tarnas DT: Thanks for meeting with me to talk about your stories and history with this land and ocean. A company, Hawaii Oceanic Technology, is proposing to establish an open ocean aquaculture operation about 2'/z to 3 miles offshore Malae Point. They must do an Environmental Assessment as part of their application to DLNR for an ocean lease. Part of an EA is a Cultural Impact Assessment to better understand the cultural history, practices and values related to this particular area. I already talked to William Akau, who provided helpful history and perspective. He said I should talk to Monty Richards of Kahua Ranch and you -Pono Von Holt of Ponoholo Ranch, since you two own or lease most of the land in this region. I talked to Monty and he said the project sounded fine to him, and agreed to meet with me later to share whatever stories he had about the land. He also said to talk to you. Today, I' d like to hear your stories about the land and ocean around Malae Point in the ahupua a of Ki `iokalani and Puaiki and its surrounding region. Please tell me about how you and previous generations of your family have lived, worked and played on this land. Tell me about your family's activities today and your plans for the future. Please also tell me about the cultural values you associate with the place. And let me know how you think this proposed project might affect cultural practices. Thanks. PVH: This is Ki`iokalani. It was part of Kahua along with most of the neighboring land to the south in what we call the Pahinahina lease. Then they had Kahua 1 and Kahua 2 to the south. When the ranches divided, Ponoholo Ranch got this piece at Ki`iokalani. Kahua has the piece next door at Puaiki. Kamehameha Schools has the next parcel. An educational nonprofit organization has the lease on that land. You should talk to Andrew Akau about that. There's a holua slide there. I was amazed when I saw it_ They're going to restore the holua and run educational programs there. DT: How did the you at Ponoholo Ranch use the shoreline area? PVH: It was seasonal use. At certain times of the year we stayed over for a week. Camping. We'd go fishing along the shoreline. Explore around. There's places to see all along the shoreline. On our piece, there's a canoe shed. DT: What kind of fishing do you see in the waters in front of Malae Point? PVH: Shore fishing, trolling and some `opelu fishing. DT: Where would they be fishing? PVH: Trolling is usually close to shore...the ono lane it's called. `opelu is pretty close to shore too. They fish all along the shoreline. You should talk to the `opelu fishermen. DT: Besides Kahua and Ponoholo Ranch and your families, what are the names of the Hawaiian who owned it before? PVH: I don't know, but you should do a title search and find out. Once you get some names call me and Monty to see if we recognize the name of the family. Maybe the Hook family was one of them? The Hawaiian families sold parcels to Kahua Ranch, like Ki`iokalani. In the 60s, Kahua did a land trade with the state. We did it to consolidate the land holdings. We gave up a midsection area so that we had a large continuous area from Ki`iokalani to Kahua Ranch to the south with the Pahinahina lease and Kahua 1 and Kahua 2, etc... Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aguaculture Project p. 82 of 122 0 DT: Any other Hawaiians associated with the land I should talk to? p AVH: How about the Ho`opai family? You should talk to Bernard. What do you think (looking at Pono). PVH: Yeah, that's a good idea. You should talk to Bernard, and his dad Kimo. O DT: Should I talk to both? I'll call them to see if they can meet with me. AVH: Maybe he could meet with them here? DT: Thanks, but I think I'll just call Bernard and Kimo and ask to meet them at their place. AVH: You could sit at their outside table and talk. DT: Sure. That sounds great. I'll call him. We'll get together and just talk story. PVH: We use it. The Ho`opai family uses it. and other Ponoholo cowboys. Kahua uses it. Tim O Richards uses it. And their cowboys, too. You see, the two ranches share the camping site. We have keys and people sign up for certain times. O O DT: Are there any stories about the land at Ki `iokalani that you can tell me? Any stories or Hawaiian history? Anything about the ahupua a, and their names? PVH: Not really. Just that the ranch used it for a long time -even before there was a road. We'd use it to go fishing, camp. Ranch hands would use it. Ki`iokalani ahupua`a is owned by Kahua, not leased like the Pahinahina lease. I don't know who owned it before. You should ask Monty who the original owners were. Call me and tell me, too. I'd like to know. DT: What impacts, positive or negative, do you think this proposed project might have on your cultural activities at Ki`iokalani and Puaiki? PVH: I don't think it'll have any impact at all. We've got to feed the world. I studied aquaculture and O almost went into it, but I decided to do cattle. Getting technology developed and other improvements in aquaculture is important. Maybe this project work. We need it. DT: Thanks for your time. If there's anything else you want to tell me about this, please call me. I'll also follow up with the Ho`opai family. And I'll write up my notes and get them to you to read before I use them in the report I'm preparing. O PVH: OK. Thanks. AVH: Thanks. O O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Ayuaculture Project p. 83 of 122 Meeting with Kimo Ho`opai, Leina`ala Ho`opai, and Bernard Ho`opai, June 27, 2008 at the Ho`opai home at Ponoholo Ranch, North Kohala, Island of Hawaii. Interview by David Tarnas. DT: Thanks for meeting with me to talk about your stories and history with this land and ocean. A company, Hawaii Oceanic Technology, is proposing to establish an open ocean aquaculture operation about 2'/z to 3 miles offshore Malae Point. They must do an environmental report as part of their application to DLNR for an ocean lease. Part of the environmental report is a Cultural Impact Assessment to better understand the cultural history, practices and values related to this particular area. I already talked to William Akau, who provided helpful history and perspective. He said I should talk to the konohiki Monty Richards of Kahua Ranch and Pono Von Holt of Ponoholo Ranch, who own or lease most of the land in this region. I talked to Monty and Pono and they gave me some great stories and perspective and said that I should definitely talk with you, the Ho`opai family, who has been using the area for generations. Today I'd like to hear your stories about the land and ocean around Malae Point in the ahupua a of Ki`iokalani and Puaiki and its surrounding region. Please tell me about how you and previous generations have lived, worked and played on the land. Tell me about your family's activities today and your plans for the future. Please also tell me about the cultural values you associate with the place. And let me know how you think this proposed project might affect cultural practices. Thanks. To start off, could you tell me your name, where you were born and about your parents? KH: My name is James William Ho`opai. Born January 24, 1937. My dad was Clement Ho`opai. My mom was Lily Kaliki, born in Hawi. I had two brothers and two sisters. Dad was working on the ranch starting in 1929. LH: My name is Genevieve Leina`ala Akina Ho`opai. My dad was Charles Akina, born in Kona. My Mom was Rose Peahi Akina. They moved here in the 20s. My dad worked at Kahua. We had eleven children in my family. Eight girls and three boys. DT: When did you start using this area around Malae Point and Ki`iokalani? KH: My dad started to use this area in 1938. We call it Black Point. This area here (pointing to the South) we call Pu`u ula`ula. Dad started fishing there in 1938. DT: Please tell me about the fishing. KH: The fishing was mostly shoreline fishing, reef fish, opakakui, kole, kala, BH: It was diving, pole fishing, netting, throw net, cross net. You caught whatever you can reach! DT: Did you use boats? BH: Once in a while, we'd go in trolling there and come into the bay here (pointing to Keawenui Bay), but it was all zig-zagging along the coast, not too far offshore. If it was good weather, southerly wind, you could go to Polulu. DT: How far offshore on average would you be trolling? BH: Oh, maybe average a mile from shore. Or closer in at'/z mile or so from shore. Sometimes out to ] ~h miles or so. When you're trolling you stay in pretty close. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 84 of 122 io 10 10 i0 O IO O O O O O DT: Has fishing changed since the early days when you started fishing? BH: When Dad used to go to the beach, there was so much fish. There was no makai road, so not many people got there. Fish was plentiful compared to now. The fish population is gone down over all these yeazs. That's why some think you got to get what you can today. It's all left overs. KH: Not so many fish today like there was. We used to get plenty. DT: What kind of fish would you fish? BH: Pakakui, kole, manini, miko, waowao, palani, DT: Would you go outside 1 YZ miles from shore? BH: Sure, if you're going to the fishing buoy. DT: Was this area about 2'/z - 3 miles offshore used by any fisherman or boater? BH: I don't think so. One thing is it's too far out. And if there's nothing biting there, no reason to go. Trollers try to stay about a mile offshore. DT: What about `opelu fishing in the area? KH: Yes, there's about three boats from Kawaihae who just fish `opelu. BH: Three from Kawaihae just concentrate on `opelu. Lala and Cambra and Yamamoto still fish `opelu from Kawaihae. There were two other families that fished `iipelu from Mahukona. All of the `opelu fishing is about'h mile offshore or so. DT: What is the use today for this area? BH: Mostly trolling. KH: Yea, mostly trolling...there's lots more boats now. BH: Some jet skis...that's another thing that goes along the shoreline. There's lots of jetskis. That's been picking up. DT: How far from shore do they go? BH: Everything is close to the shoreline. No more than'/a mile out. Close to the shoreline. KH: There's more trolling now than used to be. Last year there were more boats. This year slowed down some. BH: It's gas prices, the numbers fluctuate. They troll all the way from Kawaihae to Pololu in a zig zag pattern about 1 mile offshore. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 85 of 122 C DT: What other things does your family do on the shoreline? BH: Go camping, fish, gather opihi. KH: A'ama, wana, ukiuki LH: Pipipipi KH: Leho DT: Do you see some of these around anymore? KH: Nope. BH: No, they've all disappeared DT: Could you tell me what you know about the history of the area, some stories you'd tell your children and grandchildren about the place, the Hawaiians who used it, and your family? BH: All along the shoreline there were lots of fishing villages. You know Hawaiians, our ancestors, really live and use the shoreline. There's lots to see. We were taught to take care of the land and it would take care of you. We teach our kids that. Don't just buy stuff, go out and hunt or fish. We remind them that there used to be lots of fish, and what we used to get from the ocean and shoreline. We'd tell them stories of how we used to get them. Dad used to tell stories of riding on horseback from the Ranch to Pu`u ulaula to Black Point. KH: It would take along time to get here. We'd bring everything down here and stay down for a week. We'd teach the young kids. All alongside bay there would old Hawaiian trails going up to the mountain. They got walls here on the land about'/z way up where the people from mauka would trade for fish from the people who lived makai. There's a heiau and stone walls here about'/z way up and the families would camp there overnight waiting for the mountain families to come to trade poke meat to the mountain families. There's lots of trails mauka-makai. DT: Would cattle do to the makai lands? KH: Some. BH: It is dry. But, my dad actually had fat cattle over here at Waiakailio. The problem was that you had to drive them all the way up mauka! It was challenging old style work. At one time, it was a much bigger ranch. This was the boundary lands that separated Parker Ranch here from Kahua Ranch that started here on this property now, which we call it Black Point, all the way to Kawaiahae. It was really big. This area here we call Pahinahina lease, which is state land. Here we call it Pu`u ulaula. DT: What kind of fishing do you associate with this area of Black Point? BH: Besides the shore fishing, there's trolling. You ask any fisherman and he'll know Black Point. Trolling along the point, you can catch ono. There's some kind of shelf offshore so you follow that about a mile offshore - A mile and a half at the most. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 86 of 122 0 DT: What kind of stories would you tell your kids when you're camping at Black Point? BH: For one thing, we try to get my own grandkids to listen to stories of their great grandfather. The ~ big schools of aku and ahi that my ancestors used to chase down. Now, there no more. But, we tell the stories to keep the history alive. And with this project, now we can tell the kids here is what our technology is today. This is what we're talking about in the future now that there's not enough fish left.. DT: Any other use of this area? BH: The only ship you see way offshore is the Young Brothers barge, once in a while a cruise ship, very seldom some megayachts and of course some military vessels. DT: Would this proposed project have an impact -positive or negative - on your cultural activities? BH: It wouldn't bother me. It'd be nice to let these kids know there's something out there. KH: It would by OK with me...wouldn't bother me. BH: It's progress. With all the fish gone from the ocean, we need a different way to get our fish. Do O they plan to release any ahi from the farm? That's one way to give back. We were always taught that if you use the ocean, you always give back. That's pulapula, the more you give back, the more you get. KH: That's what we've always said. Q DT: DLNR would have to approve any release of fish and they haven't indicated any support for the idea. But, I'll include your suggestion. BH: Well if you were allowed to release some ahi, it'd be good. Just something to go back to the ocean. O BH: Maybe you could LH: It's progress. In early days we'd go to the beach with the family, there was always fish. Now with Mahukona Road, lots more people get to the shore. I stood at Che point here and looked around and O there weren't any fish or crabs around anymore. Nothing. I stood there for half an hour. Couldn't see a fish in the ocean or a crab on the rock. KH: Used to be so many but not today. LH: This is something new, interesting for the younger ones. Like Bernard said, if they let go some ~ fish, the kids would have place to go fishing. BH: I know you run across people who are against what you want to do, but for us and our families. it's OK. We teach our kids the way we were brought up. And we let them know there's this new O technology. We need to have an open mind. Can't stay the same. In order to see the future, look at this technology. You gotta start some place and once you get it going, you can do it many places and it doesn't have to be close to shore. O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 87 of 122 0 LH: It's progress. Stay away from the negative. Stay on the positive side for them. BH: I hope the project goes well. Maybe if you can sell the ahi here, the result will be that buying a piece of ahi would be cheaper. Right now the price is sky high. Fishing is slow. Fuel prices are going haywire. My grandkids here -their dad has a boat and he's trying to get his boys into it. We're fifth generation paniolo, so I make sure to tell the grandkids about our ranching history, get them to ride horse. DT: The paniolo tradition goes way back in the Ho`opai ohana. KH: Yes, and in her family, too (indicating his wife Leina`ala). Her uncle John came with Pono's dad. BH: People pay attention to each other here. We watch out for each other. For a while I stopped mowing the lawn here so it would return to pasture, and people started calling and asking, "Is something wrong with Bernard?" LH: We'd say, "No, no. he's just letting it go to pasture. He's OK." BH: But people pay attention and take care of each other. You give back in whatever you do. If you take care of the land and sea, it'll take care of you. KH: That's what we've always taught. BH: The more you give, the more you get blessed. My grandkids are staying during the day with their great grandparents. I'm lucky to have my parents have them teach these kids. Lots of people tell me, "You're lucky." I am lucky! This is a big help. They are being raised here on the same land we were raised on. Every chance we get, we take them out, and slow them down, and tell them stories of our history. As they get older, it'll help. DT. Are there other long time paniolo in these parts besides you, Uncle Kimo? BH: There's no other old-time paniolo from Kahua around now. Dad's the last of the old-time paniolo for Kahua. DT: When you went camping with the kids, what stores would you tell them about your own family and your connection to the land. BH: My uncle, Dad's brother, he was living on Maui. He had diabetes really bad. Some time ago, he called Mom asking if I was going to Black Point. l LH: It was the new year. BH: Yes, he called then. He always used to do that and now that he couldn't hardly see already and he had to be in a wheelchair, he insisted on going to Black Point. Something about remembering what he did at Black Point. They were good memories for him. LH: Two weeks later, he died. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 88 of 122 0 BH: They were good memories for him. He was remembering from small kid time when he was using the beach. p DT: Are there other families that have used Black Point and the land there for a long time like your family? O BH: No. Anybody else who uses the beach today aze new hires. We're the family that goes back a long time. My dad's dad was the one who pushed all the roads in. LH: Yes, my father-in-law did all the road work. DT: Was it used by anyone else? p BH: It was used before by some fishermen from Kohala. They would drive from Kohala to the coastline. They'd go shorefishing...hooking the fish, sometime harpooning them from shore. There's only one person doing that now. My son's girlfriend's dad does it. He was taught by his dad before. DT: What did Kamehameha Schools/ Bishop Estate do with their land at Puanui? p BH: KS used it for camping. Big Bay is north of Puanui. That's the boundazy here for Chandi's place. At Puanui, they found lobster traps. They were using the grounds there to catch lobster. There used to be lots of them then. This azea here at Kehena was all Parker Ranch. O DT: Did Pazker Ranch use this area? BH: Not much. It was mostly Kohala people coming here to fish. You remember when Chandi fenced off the access and there was that hakaka. The fishermen need to know that if you want to get there, you gotta walk the shoreline. They were so ma'a. They got used to driving to the shoreline. They were spoiled. You guys are getting lazy. And I notice that ever since Chandi bought that piece, p and closed access, the fish came back. DT: Are there any `opelu ko`a in the area and does anyone take care of them? BH: Well, the `opelu boats fish here, so there must be a ko`a. But, I have no memory of anyone Q taking care of the ko`a. I never knew there was one there until I see `opelu boats out there. Even these `opelu fishermen, their pazents fished it too before them. They were taught where to look for `opelu. They'd use onshore mazkers, Red Hill, Black Point, line them up to find the fishing grounds. p DT: Is there any thing more any of you would like to say about the cultural activities or significance of the land, or stories, or your perspective on any impacts of the proposed project on cultural activities? KH: No, that's fine. O LH: No, I think it's fine. Good luck. BH: I don't have any problem with it. My main concern was releasing the fish if you can. I'd love to see that. The project sounds good. The main thing is that it works. p Cultural /mpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 89 of 122 DT: ,Thank you very much each of you for taking the time. 1'11 write up this interview and bring the notes to you to review and approve before I use them in my report. OK? Mahalo. O O O O Q O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aguaculture Project p. 90 of 122 ~ 0 0 0 O O O O O O O Interview Transcription Eddie (Lala) La`au July 3, 2008 at Kawaihae with David Tarnas p Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 91 of 122 0 Eddie Lala La`au is recognized as the kupuna `opelu fisherman of the area. His father was an `opelu fisherman before him, active in the 1940s and afterward. Lala was interviewed by David Tarnas on July 3, 2008 at the Kawaihae Fish Market, now owned by his daughter. The interview was recorded and a transcript was prepared. The transcript was reviewed and corrected, and permission to use the transcript was granted by the interviewee on September 17, 2008. DT: So today is July 3`d, 2008, and I'm here today with Eddie La`au. Many refer to him as Lala. We are at the fishhouse on Akoni Pule Highway. EL: Akoni Pule Highway. DT: Akoni Pule Highway in Kawaihae. [David Tarnas presents a brief description of the proposed project and location off Malae Point/Red Hill /Black Point area of Kohala]. ... So I'd be interested in your description of this general area, here. You spoke of in your previous interviews about the fishing ko`as all along the shoreline here... Red Hill, Black Point... EL: All the way up. DT: All the way up... And Mahukona to Kawaihae. You talked about ko`a all along the shoreline. What I'd be interested in is to ask you to describe what you would... what the activity, that you know of, is in this area much further offshore, in deep water. So maybe describe what's happening in here, because I think that's probably the zone where most of the activity is, and then tell me, what you know of, the activity out here. And then we can get you perspective on what kind of impacts this project might have on your activity... positive or negative or nothing. EL: So from Kawaihae all the way to Mahukona. We fish on the 150 feet depths, and that's where the small boats fish too. They're trollers. They troll for ono, mahimahi. It's about almost the same depth. 150, 200 feet. But I think from 150 to 130 `opelu. And all along the shorelines, there's a lot of `opelu ko`as, right down the line. Like say as far as this area concern, that's the way we always fish. DT: You said it was seasonal EL: Yeah. It is a seasonal thing. DT: Want to tell me more about that and just sort of ... EL: Well, `opelu season usually start from August and be to January. That's net `opelu. And after that, looking at bottom fishing usually going to... onaga you look at... about 130 fathom, about that. 80 fathoms opaka. DT: 80 fathoms for opaka? EL: Opakapaka. Yeah. DT: Opakapaka. And you said Onaga...? EL: 130 fathoms. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 92 of 122 0 DT: 130 fathoms. EL: That's the deepest most of the fish may go, bottom fishing. O DT: Sure, the bottom fishing would be the deepest and that's... onaga is one of the deepest of the bottom fishing. EL: Call it red snappers, yeah? O DT: Red snappers. And they're at 130. EL: 130. Well, other than that, you may go fish, unless they have a buoy there, like they have a couple buoys out there, 7 miles off Kawaihae. O DT: And they act as... EL: Mahimahi. They draw the mahi and the ahi. Like OTEC buoy. DT: When you fish for `opelu, could you describe to me... Just when we started, you started to describe O who else has been fishing, how long you've been fishing and tell me maybe about your dad and maybe when he started fishing... Could you tell me a little about that? EL: Well I've been fishing about, probably about 50 years. My dad was fishing longer than I did. He did mostly fish for aku when the aku is on. Then after the aku is over they fish for `opelu, or bottom p fishing. DT: Were aku and `opelu... EL: It's a different kind season. Summer months is for the aku. Winter months, `opelu. And, yeah, they O keep going one season to the next season. DT: When was the... could you tell me about when was your dad born and where was he born? I'm just trying to... could you tell me some of your family connection to this land and to their fishing activity? Their genealogy a little bit. O EL: My dad was born in Kawaihae. We used to live at Spencer, and my grandfather was brought up in . Grandmother, yeah. They had a property there. Kawaihae, where the shopping center is, we lived there for awhile, for thirty years probably. Grandmother bought that place long time ago... DT: This one? O EL: Kawaihae, by the shopping center. DT: She was living in Puako. O EL: Puako, then we move to Spencer's, came to Kawaihae. We bought out Yoshikami. Yoshikami owned the aku boat before. And my grandmother bought it from Yoshikami. DT: So they lived in Puako. You know when they first moved to Puako? ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 93 of 122 EL: I really don't. I guess they started from there, Puako, and they moved like this, Spencer and Kawaihae. DT: Sure. You think they were born at Puako? EL: I pretty sure, yeah. Way back, though. Kind of far back. Had lotta fish those days. DT: And they were fishing at that time. EL: Yeah, fishing. Mostly fishing. When they bought the business, that's when they went to aku, bottom fishing, and `opelu. DT: And you were born when and where? EL: Oh, I was born in Kawaihae, March I5, `34... DT: And are you... EL: In fact I was born here. DT: Born right here? EL: We had this place but we moved to the sand below. The sand, that's where the business was... We stayed there. And every time we passed this place I said, "Who's place is that?" Had a house on `em but nobody lived there. Mango trees and ... ahh it was great. Until the harbor came in. They told us... DT: When was that? EL: Oh, I think in the `SOs. Think so, in the `SOs. I was in high school. DT: What happened when the harbor came in? EL: Then we had to move back here. The old place. Good thing my grandmother bought it. Property was cheap then. DT: Did she buy it when she bought the aku fishery? EL: Yeah. She bought it, the aku first, but yeah before that, she bought that then she bought the Yoshikami business. DT: I see. So she had this first, and then she bought Yoshikami's aku business. And that's this... EL: That's the boat. One of the boats. The "Kainehi". DT: How do you say that? EL: "Kainehi". Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 94 of 122 0 O DT: Oh, I spelled it wrong. "Kainehi". EL: But we always called it, that's the `opelu boat. DT: That's the `opelu... This ... EL: That's the aku boat [EG points to photo of his father and partner and his boat] O DT: This is the aku boat, the bigger one. And the `opelu boat's the smaller one. EL: And the back one's the bottom fishing boat. That's my grandfather, Jack Paulo. He fish for bottom fish all year round. You can fish bottom fish all yeaz round. ~ DT: What was your grandfather's name? EL: Jack Paulo. P-a-u-I-o. DT: Ok, Jack Paulo. There's a Paulo family Kona, is it a Kona family? ~ EL: I know he has a Kona family. O DT: Oh yeah `cause the families I know, Milolii. EL: Used to go down to Captain Cook, my grandma them. Jack Paulo. DT: What was your grandmother's name? EL: Annie La`au. O DT: And then it was your... they had your father. EL: Yeah it was something like that. DT: Eddie La`au senior is dad. O EL: Yeah, took his mother's maiden name, his mother's name. DT: And did Eddie, your dad, have siblings, brothers or sisters? O EL: None. He was an only child. DT: And this fellow in the picture, James. EL: My mother's brother, Jimmy Merseberg. O DT: Got it. And so your mother's brother is Jimmy Merseberg... they fished together for some time? EL: Oh they fish with my grandfather, that's Paulo. My father has his own crew. He has about four, five people work for him. O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 95 of 122 DT: So this is another picture of you with the `opelu boat with the glass box look underwater. Could you describe to me if you could, what you would do leaving out of Kawaihae... You would come up and sort of how you would use this shoreline. If you could just take a few minutes and describe what your `opelu trip would be... EL: Well I always look for a mark, like Red Hill, there's a ko`a there... Even outside Kawaihae there's a ko`a there, Kona ko`a. Right down the line. There's all ko`as down the line. DT: All inhere. EL: Yeah. Only in the say, 130 feet, 150 feet, sometimes closer. Mostly the areas about 130, 150 feet. DT: So you would stop at each one along the way? EL: Those days we had different ko`as, so I stopped along all the ko`as and feed. DT: Did you feed the ko`a and maintain the ko`a? EL: I always feed and check if there's fish there. If the `opelu coming in, if they start to eat. Then I go out and catch it. Usually, like I say, there's a season. It's not like they are always there. You might have a few. A few might eat, yes, but that's about all. Only get 20, 30 pounds. But season time, that thing just ball up. Two... hundred, who knows. DT: I've read about how people will maintain the fishing ko`a by feeding it. And people have their own mix that they use of different plants... EL: Well in the old days, we used to use... Actually, in Kona they use pear, they have large peaz there. But we used to use the taro. Tazo I think we got practically free, but not now. Lot of tazos... Lotta time we exchange the taro for fish. You like fish? Here. You get a big bag of taro. Lotta work on that taro... you gotta cook it, scrape it. That's why. It works. DT: So you use tazo in the early times to feed the ko`a. What was the thing you said they use in Kona? EL: Avocado, pumpkin... DT: Pumpkin? And avocado. EL: Pumpkin, avocado, taro. DT: What else, once the tazo wasn't so available, what'd you start using? EL: Quick oats. DT: Oats, sure. Did you say plants only or did you ever use... EL: After that we just did the oats, it's much easier. You just buy the box and there you go... DT: So that was pretty much what you use since then. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 96 of 122 to 10 10 EL: Yeah. It's so easy. You just buy one box, boil it, you get almost 5 gallons. DT: How do you prepaze it? Do you prepare the oatmeal? EL: Yeah, usually I cook it or can use it raw, like that. DT: But if it is dry it will float, yeah? EL: No, no. It sinks. Goes down, comes up. By the time it comes up the `opelu eat it up. But usually I cook it because you gotta save money. DT: So you want to spread it out... ~ EL: Spread it out. DT: Volume. EL: Yeah. O DT: So you would maintain the ko`a, feeding the ko`a, for the last... How long would you say you've been using oats? EL: Well, more or less I say 50 yeazs now. DT: Yeah, `cause tazo got scarce about 50 years ago. EL: Too expensive. DT: yeah, so then how often would you go out to check the ko`a, feed them, and see how many fish there are? EL: Well usually I start feeding them July, check `em once in a while, see how it looks. When it starts building up, then I take my net and catch it. Sometimes you can catch it in July. July, August, mostly ~ August, September, like I say, winter months. DT: So would you continue to feed the ko`a even as you're starting to harvest the fish? EL: Yeah I usually start eazlier, check it out. ~ DT: When you are fishing along, and you're doing a trip from Kawaihae, how long would you spend out and would you return to Kawaihae or would you return to Mahukona or anything? EL: Oh no, I return to Kawaihae. I get a trailer boat, so easier right here. Takes me... I usually go in the morning, about 6, back about lunchtime. Because I usually caught fish like that. Early morning and get Q back. Some days I don't caught fish, so I go out and then 2:00 I get back. Fill up the boat. Anytime you fill up the boat you come back. Before, 9 o'clock we back, no problem, fill up before 9 o'clock. DT: What's it like now? ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 97 of 122 EL: Well.. DT: I mean in these recent years... EL: Well, some years fine, some years slow. It goes up and down. I guess, I don't know, it's just not like it used to be, you know? DT: What do you mean? EL: Before was plentiful. Every now and then there's a lot. When it comes in, it comes in, but I guess I don't spend the time to catch it. I just fish for `opelu, concentrate on one thing only. Now I'm outta the water. DT: So you target one fishery. EL: Just `opelu. No such thing as looking for mahimahi or ahi like that. DT: You had some pictures in here of the `opelu net, very long, stretched out [showing photos]. The chum bag. EL: That's the chum bag. DT: Rock to carry it down. EL: I used lead. DT: Lead? EL: Yeah. DT: And then you'd yank it and open up the bag. EL: Yeah, Take it down to whatever depth you want, take it off, yeah. DT: Here you were talking about 150 feet depth, again. Red Hill, Black Point, Honako`a Gulch. How you used marks on the shore. EL: Like Honako`a Gulch, Honako`a usually, maybe 90 feet. Shallow water. Smaller `opelu. Most days, like I said, 130, 150. DT: Yeah, so at Black Point you're probably... EL: 130. DT: 130? At Black Point, 130 feet. EL: 130, 150 feet. Cultural /mpact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 98 of 122 0 DT: 150 feet. EL: Now you get depth recorder... O DT: Yes, so you actually can really tell what the depth is. This was a picture, how they described it fish ing from a boat here. So it's very complicated. EL: Yeah. At first was complicated. After you get used to it. O DT: So the... you mentioned the trollers. Even though you don't troll, you see where they go, where, what depth they go at. So they're also about what depth, and when did you see them out there? EL: Well they about 200 depth, for 150 up. 150, 200. O DT: Yup. So they follow 150 or 200 foot contour. EL: I trolling at 150 also. I usually troll home. EL: Sure, makes sense. O DT: What do you target? What kind of fish do you go after in that 150 foot...? EL: Mostly onos right now. Mahimahi. O DT: Through the year, does the season change, type of fish that you can get while trolling? EL: Yeah, it's all in the season. Sometimes when the mahimahi comes in, it comes in a lot. They like ono , comes in and goes out... back in again Q DT: Have you found that the catch from trolling is about the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago, or is it different? EL: It's different. O DT: Tell me what the difference is. EL: Well, before used to go from here to here, or Black Point and back, that's about it and you get 1 Q 15 mahimahi trolling. But now we get a lot of boats. Before I can count the boats on my hand fingers. One, two, three boats. Now see lot of boats out there. That there is the difference. O DT: So, so many hooks in the water? EL: More lures in the water... O DT: More lures in the water... EL: Yep. Lotta lures... DT: So you've seen your catch decrease? (~ Cultural Lmpact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 99 of 122 C EL: Yeah, automatic out there going up and down, ono lane. Before you only see one boat going up and down ono lane. Now maybe 20, 30 who knows...During the weekends, lots of them out there. DT: Is that the high use... is that weekends? EL: Weekends, yeah. DT: When would you fish, during the week, weekends, or whenever? EL: Whenever I get time. I'd rather fish during the week. `opelu doesn't matter, like I said we only had three `opelu boats. DT: So could you tell me about the other people in the fishery? You said there's three `opelu boats. You said yourself... EL: Cambra... DT: What's his first name? EL: Cambra. I call him just that name, Cambra. DT: Ok, that's what you call him, Cambra. How do you spell it? EL: C-a-m-b-r-a DT: C-a-m-b-r-a, Cambra. So Cambra started fishing with, you said, Yamasaki. EL: Yamasaki. DT: Now what was Cambra's relationship to Yamasaki? EL: Father-in-law. DT: Yamasaki was Cambra's father-in-law, and he was an `opelu fisherman? EL: Yeah, he also was a politician. DT: So Yamasaki... So what kind of time frame are we talking about for Mr. Yamasaki? EL: Well, Yamasaki... you see that `opelu boat there alongside my dad's boat? Well, they bought the boat same time. A few boats was bought that year. DT: Really? EL: Yeah. One was Yamasaki. Ernesto, I think it was. Well, anyway, Yamasaki had one like that, a little smaller. But it was from the same builder. DT: Was it built here? C Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 100 of 122 ~o EL: It was built in Hilo. DT: Build in Hilo. EL: Yeah. DT: About what year do you think this boat and the other boats were purchased? Best guess. Q EL: I'd say in the 40s I think. Pretty sure. DT: So Yamasaki and your grandfather... O EL: My father... DT: Your father bought the boats at that time. Ok. EL: They were fishing for `opelu... ~ DT: So Yamasaki was a contemporary of your father. EL: Yeah. DT: So you were saying that before then your grandfather also fished. O EL: Yeah. 10 DT: Were there other people at that time? When your grandfather... Do you remember stories of your grandfather, when he talked about what fishing was like when he was a kid? EL: [laugh] DT: Do you remember any stories? O EL: I know when my father was fishing, a lot of people was fishing also. They had a lot of aku boats. DT: At the time when your father was fishing there was a lot of aku boats. EL: Yeah. Small boats. O DT: How many about out of Kawaihae? EL: My dad had two. Berdon... DT: Berdon? They had a couple? d EL: They had one. Rudder Yates. He died, though. DT: Rudder? O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 10l of 122 EL: Rudder Yates, he died. DT: Rudder Yates. He had another one... And this would have been in the SOs, 40s? EL: 40s. Long time. DT: 40s. So mostly aku boats. And you're your dad was the only `opelu boat out of Kawaihae? EL: Well, a lot of `opelu boats. DT: Also, more. There were other `opelu boats. EL: Had about 10 or 15 DT: 10 or 15 `opelu boats, out of Kawaihae? EL: 10 or 15 on the sand. DT: How many different families fished? EL: Lotta families were living Kawaihae those days on the beach. They had their own canoes. Actually they had canoes, boats. There were more `opelu fishers than now. DT: Much bigger fleet. EL: You could see `em going out of the bay. Racing each other. [laugh] DT: To get to the ko`a first. EL: To get to the ko `a. DT: But today you say there's three EL: Three. That's it. Those days fishing was a good life. You make a few dollars, fish to eat. Instead of working on the plantation. That's why we had most of the Filipino workers coming here to fish for my dad. DT: Well, this area here, Black Point, you know it's, if you look at the land this is the Pahinahina lease that Kahua has right in here at Puulaula, Red Hill area in here. And over here this is state land that Parker Ranch leased. So this is all ranching area in here. So I've been talking Co the folks on land here to get their insights on what something like this might do because it's a neighbor. So I've asked, done some interviews with, I've mentioned, Bill Akau. Bill said I should go talk to Monty Richards, because he's the konahiki. EL: Yeah. He used to fish before, pleasure fishing. He used to be the... I remember one time Kawaihae fishing club president. After that is Kohala. He was the foreman for the plantation. DT: He ran Kahua Ranch. Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 102 of 122 io 10 to 10 EL: Well he was one time a president for Kawaihae fishing club. DT: Really, that's great. Sure you know him. Well, he knows you. He said make sure you go talk to Mr. La`au. So I talked to Monty and I talked to Pono, and Andy. Because they aze the ones who have the greatest history with this area here. And I asked their input on how... what the history of the land and the cultural values, cultural activities, from their perspective. EL: Well, good, Monty. DT: They're both great people. Monty and Pono. They also mentioned, Pono said I should go talk to Kimo Ho`opai. EL: Oh he's an old-time cowboy. DT: Well he is the oldest-time cowboy now. So I talked to Kimo and his wife and his son Bernard. Talked story about their use because they have been camping here for... EL: Black Point DT: Black Point, yeah, they've been camping there for generations because it's a place that Kahua has got. EL: Oh Kahua Ranch. O DT: And so Ho`opai has been using that place for a long time and so they told me about their use of the area and what their history and memory is of the use of the offshore area. What they describe is the same thing as what you describe, just in terms of offshore and depth. And I asked them the same question that I'd like your perspective on, which is, what would be you r perspective on a project, ~ located out here, what would be Che potential impact might it have on your cultural activity, positive or negative or none at all or what ever. Just what's your perspective on that? EL: Well, I know it won't bother the fishing. I think it's a great idea if it works. That's the way I look at it. Main thing is it works. I know out here, that depth, sometimes we get a lot of current. ~ DT: Yes, there is a lot of current. EL: Lotta current. O DT: So it would be good if it works but there is a lot of current out there. EL: Like I said, main thing is that it works. DT: Yeah. EL: Hey it puts food on the table is the way I look at it. DT: Yes. Do you think that there might be other impacts from the project on other people's cultural activity? ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aguaculture Project p. 103 of 122 EL: I really don't know. Hard to say. I mean, probably the fisherman... The fisherman might like it because I think there they can catch a lot of mahimahi. That's the way I look at it too. They gonna attract lotta mahimahi because they gonna attract a lot offish. Just like the movie were here. DT: Waterworld. EL: They put that island out there... Chey attract a lot of `opelu out there. Could have been. I said, hey, no wonder these guys hooking `opelu. Hey, I better stop there and check it out. Sure enough when I get there and check it out I caught a lot of `opelu under there, `cuz `opelu like the shade. DT: Yes. EL: I remember that one. Had the big barracuda too. During the day I had to leave there at 9 o'clock, because that's when they filmed the movie. So what I do I feed the barracuda, get `em away from the island. And the `opelu hangs around the barracuda so I get `opelu away from the island. Unreal. DT: What do you think of the proposed activity, basically a farming operation, in terms of the overall cultural history of this land that you and your family have been part of for a long time. Any perspective? Any comments you want to make on sort of this as an activity? How does it fit in general with the history of the land in this area here, knowing what you know about it. EL: Well I don't think I expect anything bad. Only thing is my daughter has a little shop here. DT: So, in terms of the fishing culture, you don't see any impact - negative or maybe positive -because of fish aggregating. EL: I think it's a great idea. What we said, so long as it works. DT: Exactly. Well are there any other people you think I should talk to who have that historical perspective like you in fisheries of this area? EL: Not right now. Too bad the most of the old fisherman either dies or they moved out. They moved to the mainland... DT: What were some of the names of these old fisherman? EL: Donald Liu. He was like the best ono fisher. DT: What's his name? Donald Liu? EL: Yeah, he used to own the Kohala Kimchee. DT: Ok, the Liu family. EL: He was my best ono fisherman, He's great. Too bad he moved. DT:~ I see. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 104 of 122 I9 10 EL: Yeah, he was one of them. DT: Who are some of the other old time fisherman. EL: Righ[ now... by now mostly all new ones. DT: I see. So the ones that are in the fishery now have been in it for how long? O EL: Same like me. Long time. DT: 40 years? Who are the fisherman you would think of as... if there's no old time fishermen around who are your peers, who would that be. The two other boats. O EL: Oh you could talk to them. Especially Cambra. He does bottom fishing and `opelu. DT: Does he go out of Kawaihae? EL: Kawaihae. His boat in the harbor, moored in the small boat harbor. O DT: That's his last name, Cambra. Ok I'l] look it... Does he live in Kawaihae somewhere? EL: Kohala. DT: So I'll look, try to find him in the phone book. And then the other person, Billy Yamamoto? O EL: Billy Yamamoto. DT: How long has he been in the fishery? !, p EL: 25, 30 I think. Both of them old timers. DT: Yep. Does Billy go out of Mahukona or Kawaihae? EL: Both out of Mahukona. O DT: Is there anyone else that goes out of Mahukona besides Billy? EL: I really don't know because I usually launch my boat from Kawaihae. O DT: Sure. EL: Billy, you know, he launch his boat at Mahukona. DT: I see, I'll ask. ~ EL: There's a lot of trollers like I say, old time trollers. Kwanji. DT: Kwanji ? p Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aguaculture Project p. 105 of 122 EL: He's one of the old timers. DT: Ok. Mr. Kwanji. Is he in Kohala? EL: Yeah, he's about 80 something years old. He's still fishing by himself. Gotta think back on the old timers still fishing. DT: These are trollers. EL: Yeah, he's a troller. DT: Ok. Who are some other old time trollers? EL: Mostly all new. New trollers. DT: Well among the new ones, who are ones that have a sense of the history of it? EL: I think you should see Cambra, he's one of the oldest. DT: I've got a short list: Cambra, Billy Yamamoto, and then Mr. Kwanji. If I can get a hold of them. Just to find out perspective, that's all. EL: Yeah Kwanji been trolling, like I say 80 years old, practically all his life. EL: Ok. Yeah. I used to know all those fisherman. Now its just the young generation. They're more, I say, sport fishing. DT: Yes EL: They like to troll, get out there, jump out the boat, relax I guess. But old timers they like to go and fish and work, I guess. DT: So you see more of the fisherman out there, and you would describe them as sport fisherman. EL: Yeah, I say more sport fishermen. The weekends here is good fishing. The fishers go out for ahi. It's good, real good. DT: Well you have helped with the process by giving me the history. I'll write up the results, characterize the activities in the area- cultural activities, historical activities-- and then what the potential might be according to these perspectives. If you think of anything you might have wanted to say, just give me a call. What I'm going to do is write up my notes and our conversation and then give you a copy of it so that you can look at it and make sure it's correct or if you wanted something taken out, take it out. So I'll bring it back. I'll give you a call and bring back the typed up notes to you and then leave them with you to read and then we can meet again after that. Let me know if it's ok to use it or not. EL: Sure DT: OK. Cultural ImpactAssessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Ayuaculture Project p. 106 of 122 0 EL: I will do. O DT: Thank you very much. EL: It's a real pleasure. DT: Nice talking to you. O DT: Lala, nice talking to you. You have a certain standing as a senior fisherman. EL: Yeah, I guess. I didn't mean to be one of them but sooner or later I guess. O DT: Sooner or later you become a kupuna. EL: Kupuna [laugh]. DT: That's how people refer to you so it's a... ~ EL: Before I used to look up to my grandfather, my dad... DT: Now you're a kupuna. 0 EL: A kupuna. DT: Well it's an honor to spend some time with you. I'll come back again, once I write this up. EL: Ok. That's fine O DT: Alright. Sounds great and good luck. EL: Good luck to you. And Cambra should be good to talk to - like I said. DT: I'll talk to Cambra I'll do that I'll talk to Cambra because he would have some good stories, very O good knowledge. EL: Because his knowledge. He's been around. I think he gotta lotta local knowledge. DT: So yes, he's done plenty of fishing to know... O EL: He's done a lot of bottom fishing. DT: How old is Cambra, Lala? EL: I think 6Q pretty close to me. O DT: I'll follow up with him. But it's has been a real pleasure meeting with you. EL: Alright then. DT: Thank you. O Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 107 of 122 Interview Transcription Kwanji Fukuyama August 19, 2008 in Hawi with David Tarnas Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 108 of 122 0 DT: (David describes the proposed project and Cultural ImpactAssessment) You're very much experienced in bottom fishing and trolling, and you know the area well, so what I'd like to do, now that you know the project is just to ask you to describe to me your experience in fishing this area, the type of p fish ing you do... Just talk a little bit about it. Maybe before you start you could just tell me, were you born here? KF: Yes I was born here. ~ DT: Were your parents born here too? KF: No my parents were from Japan. DT: They both came from Japan? But you were born here. ~ KF: I was born here. DT: In Kohala? KF: Oh yes, Kohala, but down at camp Hoea. O DT: Hoea? KF: It's Kohala. p DT: Yes. What was your father and mother's name? KF: Fukuyama. My father was Ataru Fukuyama. O DT: Ataru Fukuyama. KF: Yeah. My mother was Shizue. DT: When were you born? O KF: May 17, 1923. So yeah, well I've been fishing basically all my life. Not all yet. DT: Still have more to go. KF: Yeah I've got more to go yet. [laugh] ~ DT: Was your father a fisherman? O KF: Well, as a hobby he liked to go fishing. DT: But you took it up as a profession? KF: Not really. I enjoy fishing. I want to stay on the ocean. DT: When you go fishing what do you usually fish for? Tell me about that. ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 109 of 122 KF: Well right now I do mostly like only trolling and bottom fishing. Not too much on menpachi anymore, that's night fishing, and akule fishing. That's about it. DT: Could you describe the types of fishing that you do, and whether you go out of Kawaihae? KF: Yes. DT: Could you describe a day in your usual way of fishing, you know if you're going after one type of fish, what would your day be like? If it's a bottom fishing trip what would it be like, or if it's a... KF: Oh well, bottom fishing, you always want to get out there you know, break of day. The sooner you get out there, the better it is. But like that area you're talking about, we go for onaga and opaka and stuff like that. DT: Could you describe, as you're coming up from Kawaihae, where would you tend to focus your fishery? KF: I would say now I'm gonna fish for opaka, I'm going to go closer to Mahukona. And like onaga and stuff like that, I tend to stay closer to Kawaihae, between Black Point and Kawaihae. DT: What kind of depth do you tend to go for? KF: I usually fish, like for onaga, around that area, it's anywhere between 130 and 150 fathoms. DT: So you would be up in this area right in here. 130, 150 fathoms right in here (pointing to the map). When you would go fishing, would you troll to your bottom fishing spot and then change gear and go bottom fishing? KF: You cannot mix. Like I always tell my friend, "Between two chairs, you fall to the ground." You cannot troll and then bottom fishing. You gotta keep your mind on one stuff. Like if your gonna go bottom fishing, you go out there and you do your bottom fish. That's about it, you know. And when you go troll, you just gotta keep at it, you gotta troll. DT: So if you go bottom fishing, you're coming out of Kawaihae, you would tend to focus on certain areas between Kawaihae and Black Point? KF: Yes. DT: For onaga primarily? KF: Yeah, we have our own spots. They're not all over the place, just certain spots. Partly, I use landmarks and depth recorder. Not much on the GPS. My GPS is landmarks. That's the old style. DT: Sure you had landmarks and then you use a depth recorder too. KF: Yes and I go to the area and 1 fish. Yeah. It's not like the old days though. DT: Tell me the difference. What have you seen are the changes? Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 110 of 122 0 KF: Well, I would say like 20 years ago, you know, I could catch what I want to catch. Now you catch only what the ocean gives you. You can't be to choosey. They're not like that anymore. O DT: So you're saying that 20 yeazs ago you could catch whatever you wanted but now you can only catch what's available. KF: Yeah. Plus there's less fish all around, yeah? For one thing, like in our azea here, the current has ~ changed. It's not like the old days' current. On the old days' current, we just know where to go. But like now, the current is so erratic. Today, bite's down Kawaihae. Next day, bite's way up you know. Like the old days, like in trolling, we can follow the fish. Month by month we can follow the fish right up from Kawaihae, all the way to Mahukona because the current is always the same. But today, oh man. It bites up there one week and bites the other end the other week. It's pretty hard, and not that much fish. O DT: Let's talk about trolling. When you would go trolling what would your tazget species be? KF: Mostly ono and mahimahi. ~~ 10 DT: And how would you fish for them? Would you go to a certain depth and follow that? What would be your usual average that you would try to go for? KF: Well I tend to follow mostly like the opelu ko`as. That's where we troll. But even then I do not fish for opelu but the opelu is so erratic too. And it's... to me there's no ko`a anymore. You know what is a ko`a? DT: I do. KF: They move all over the place. They're not around as much as before. DT: Can you think of what might have caused these changes? KF: It's hard to say. Current is for one thing. And I think the reproduction is not going too normally. I don't think they are reproducing good. ~ DT: If you're tazgeting ono, let's say, you said you try to stay around the ko`a. From what Lala was telling me that's at about 30 fathoms. KF: 30 to 40 fathoms. ~ DT: Between 30 and 40 fathoms is that accurate? KF: Yeah. DT: Okay, so you would be going closer to shore, you know in the 30 to 40 fathoms. Let's say we're O looking at this area, 220+ fathoms. What would be the use of this azea off here. You know at that depth, that far from shore, about two and half miles from shore around that depth, what would be the use of that area from a fishing standpoint or anything else? ~ Cultural Impact Assessment for Kawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 111 of 122 KF: Well we don't venture that far out because... Well, there's some buoys out there... DT: Way out there, Double X, Double Z, those are way out, much further. KF: But, I don't know. Normally we don't fish that far out. On account of the weather, the wind. Tf they put a cage out there, that might interrupt the natural migration offish and da kine. DT: Tell me about it. KF: Because I fish off the buoys once in a while, but I don't like the buoys. Because the migration don't go the natural way. They stop at a certain point, you know. Yeah, so I don't know how that will affect us because our area of trolling and bottom fishing is limited. Our area is just from Kawaihae, rather Puako, all the way until Mahukona. Now this area (poinring to area off the Coast Guard Station)... we don't go out this area very often because of the weather. DT: So north of Mahukona, up Coast Guard and over here, is that what you are referring to? KF: Yes, there's a lot of fish there, but we don't normally go up there. DT: Because of the wind? KF: Wind and most of the time it's rough. DT: And the current, the rough waves, the rough seas. KF: So we always bank on the fish to come this way and go that way, but I don't know how that will affect the cages, though. DT: I know there has been some experience where the cages do act as fish aggregators. KF: Yes. DT: And in other places they have arrangements so the fisherman can fish close to the cages. Do you have any opinions about that? KF: Yeah, well, by bringing more sharks and stuff. Attracts sharks.. DT: How could this affect your fishing experience? Any of your discussion on that I would appreciate. Your candid opinion, positive or negative, whatever you feel. KF: It's hard. We have no way of assessing advantage or disadvantage of those things. Until the thing is there, then we gonna know if it affects our fishing or not. Because they gonna feed the fish and a lot of-- some of the food is going out of the cage naturally. That may draw the fish more toward the food, rather than trying to look for fish for themselves. Like I say like the opelu. It's the main source for mahimahi and ono like that. And that supply is depleting. DT: The opelu supply is depleting. Cultural Impact AssessmenX for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 112 of 122 0 KF: Yeah. So is akule. It's getting less and less. The fish will move where they can find food. That applies to even bottom fish if you have a cage. So some will go down. So what does that do, affect our fishing? It's hard to say. But I'm against it To be blunt about it. Because that's gonna attract the O sharks also. Now when we go troll every now and then our hook fish, they grab them, the one on the line. Well, yeah, other than that, well... DT: You think the increase in the number of sharks in the azea will increase the number of times per year fish are being taken by the sharks, and so that would affect you. ~ KF: And you know if food was always available and they are hungrier and hungrier, it might affect the divers and the swimmers if more predators come around. DT: And your concern really has to do with the change in migration patterns and the sharks. Sounds like the two main issues. One of the things that they have done in other aquaculture farms in the ocean ~ where they have allowed fisherman to fish near the cages because it does act as a fish aggregating device. Do you have any opinions about that? KF: I don't like the aggregagon device. O DT: I understand that. KF: You see, lotta small ahi and aku get together there. Of course the fisherman they go and take any number of those and now they wondering whether to limit the small ahis. Well they're the ones who put them together there for the people to take. And now they want to control that. That's kind of way out of ~ hand. That's why I don't like the fish devices. DT: Let's talk about bottom fishing. There's been a lot of changes in bottom fishing over the years. KF: Yeah, this area is kinda almost wiped out. ~ DT: Could you talk about that a little bit. What did it used to be like, what kind of species did you used to catch and what do you catch now? KF: What has brought a big change is technology. In the old days we go by landmark and we all used O hand line. 120 fathoms, 130 fathoms, we pull with the hand, so naturally we get enough to bring home we bring home, that's it. But now they have GPS, they have depth recorders. Well I use a depth recorder but I don't use GPS. They go until the thing wiped out. Because they want to make attempts to sell. Naturally it's gonna get wiped out because they don't miss. In the old days for us was hit or miss, so that changed the bottom a lot you know. Like you know last couple of years, one spot in particular, I used to catch onaga like 128, 130 fathom. There's nothing there now. O DT: So do you have to go shallower? KF: I have to go further out. Q DT: Into deeper water? KF: In deeper water. ~ Cultural Lmpact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 713 of 122 C DT: So you used to go... KF: About 128, 130. Now we go 140 up to 150, but we have electric reels to pull up. So you know, like with the electric reels... I use them because I don't want to be left out, sort of you know. Like the old C days, you know, you get a hand line, you get tired, you quit. But now you can go whole day, whole night, let the electric reel do the work. So that's why... and the fish comes up faster too. DT: So technology has really changed... KF: That changed the fishing plenty. DT: What kind of fish did you used to fish and what kind of fish do you catch now? KF: Well they made the bottom fish seasonal so now, you know, it's off season now, so I don't go bottom fishing. But I do some nearshore bottom fish. DT: And that is about what depth? KF: Anywhere from 20 to 60. DT: Fathoms. KF: Yeah, depending if you go for uku and stuff like that. But fishing is very hard now. DT: Let's say before when you were going out to 128, 130 fathoms, what species were you targeting? KF: Onaga. DT: Primarily onaga or would you go for ehu? KF: Paka. Would fish them in closer, maybe about 80 to 85. DT: Okay, so paka was in closer. KF: In the old days, let's say in the 70s, 70 fathoms. Plenty. And then again, you take only what you... when you get tired you quit. It's hard. DT: So right now when you do go bottom fishing, when can you go and what do you target? What species do you target now, these days? KF: When the bottom fish open I go for onaga first. DT: What is the season now, how is it managed? KF: It's not going to be open until November, I think. DT: How long is the season? KF: As soon as they figure that there is a quota. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 114 of 122 0 DT: Ah, so it's when a certain amount is caught, then they close it_.. p KF: Then they close it. DT: How long was the season last yeaz? KF: Well they opened in September, I think it was, and then they... they opened in September and then ~ they closed it in Mazch or April. But then, this year they closed it a little eazlier and then longer... DT: Yes, so the closed season has been longer this yeaz than last year. What do you think is going to happen? O KF: I don't think that's going to help any. You know why? Because now because the New Year season is coming. That's when most of the bottom fish is good price and you know, people buy that fish. They gonna open in November and I'm telling you the whole state is going to rush and go... Every chance they get they gonna go out there and they going to stay as long as they catch fish and I don't think that's a very good idea. So you can mark my words that they aze going to close it much longer next year. Because everybody's waiting for that day and everybody's going to catch and they're going to catch... ~ Because it's going to close, they're going to catch as much as they can. The quota will be reached faster. DT: Yeah. How many people aze out targeting bottom fish? How many fisherman do you think are targeting bottomfish in this area? 10 10 10 KF: In this area? Well, they're targeting quite a bit because they're coming from Honokaa, even Laupahoehoe. They're all coming down this side. DT: Launch out of Kawaihae? KF: Yeah, out of Kawaihae. Or they go out of Kona and come up here. So mostly out of Kawaihae. And when they come, naturally they come for the whole weekend. Like we stay here. We go out one day and come back that day. But the outsiders, well you can't blame them... The outsiders are going to stay for the whole weekend and they're going to catch as much as they can. DT: So have you seen changes in the number of fisherman? KF: Oh, yes! DT: Tell me about it. O KF: Oh, plenty. DT: Plenty of changes, or what do you mean... Plenty of fishermen? O KF: Plenty fisherman. I think more fisherman than fish. DT: More fisherman than fish. p Cultural Lmpact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 115 of 122 O KF: Yup. I don't know how to guess prices are going to affect among the fisherman from now on. That's another reason that when bottom fish opens, it's going to ruin the fishing, because they don't want to use that much gas. DT: So when they go bottom fishing, they're going to stay out there... KF: Stay out there for the whole day. DT: So when you go bottom fishing do you tend to go to one of your spots and stay there a long time or do you stay for a while... and if it's no good, do you go to the next one? KF: If it doesn't bite in one spot then I gotta look for another spot. DT: If you were to look at say this location here, that's where their proposed site is... You don't have to tell me where your grounds are because that's secret and I understand that. But how close would your grounds be to this area here? Just if you could estimate number of miles or something from that area, that's about a mile. KF: Yeah, probably about a mile in, yeah? DT: It's about where you would be taggeting? KF: I'd be fishing here. I would be about 140, just about here DT: Yup, so it looks like about a mile away. Ok, so you work in this azea. Okay. What kind of changes have you seen fishing along in this area in the time that you've been fishing. In terms of number of boats, you said technology has changed. But sort of, could you talk about what you've seen over the years you've been fishing and the changes in this coastline. Sort of what you've seen over the years? KF: Well, for one thing a little bit pollution, yeah? The water is not as clear as it used to be, so naturally we have to go farther offshore. It's funny but I don't know what happened, but maybe we used to have drier weather, but anytime there's storms, the gulches run down all thaC dirt you know, and it goes inside the ocean and it stays there for days and days. Like closer to the heiau, the bottom is all muddy. DT: That's at Puu Kohola KF: Yeah. Outside of that is all mud, so when you... even if it doesn't flood, if you have rough weather you can see the discoloration over the whole ocean because it's going to stir it up again and that affects a lot of fishing you know. Because, and I think it does interrupt the spawning. I think the fish had to move away from here to spawn. That's what I think you know. And I guess a lot of people's sewers and stuff seeping through the ground... I don't know that much about it, but the water is not as pure as it used to be. DT: And you find that there's more fishermen? KF: Yes. A lot more fishermen. DT: What do you see them targeting mostly? What are they doing mostly, the fishermen that are out there now? Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculrure Project p. 116 of 122 d KF: Oh... p DT: Are they bottom fishing, are they trolling, are they opelu fishing? KF: They... everybody does mostly about the same type of fishing. Bottom fishing and trolling. DT: I see, okay. O KF: And I see like I said, our area is limited. Well there's boats going this way and that way, so a ]ot of boat traffic. Of course that's not very good. Of course everybody wants to catch fish. Because it's an expensive hobby. Like me - I built my own boat and I run them with a 50 horse Suzuki. My gas consumption is not that high in comparison to guys with a big fiberglass boat with two engines. They O gotta catch fish to balance their expenses. They have to. And you know if you own a boat you can't leave it idle in the garage all the time. You gotta use it. That's why whether is good fishing or bad fishing, you know, fishermen will go out. No matter what. In the old days when I used to work at the plantation, I work like night shift, 2 to 10. Igo out maybe there's only 2, 3 boats out there. DT: So this is... What year are you talking about? When you were working at the plantation? O KF: Oh, in the SOs and 60s. DT: So in the SOs and 60s there were only a couple of boats? O KF: On the weekdays, but weekend there's a pile of boats out there. I used to come find my fishing during the week so, well, that's why my catch was pretty good. But now, oh boy, it doesn't make any difference. If they hear the fish is running, weekdays or not, there's just as many boats out there. DT: And so they are trolling for ono, mahi, but they are also going for bottom fish. Primarily onaga? Or ~ what are they going after? KF: Like I said everybody's not choosey now. DT: Whatever you can catch... KF: If the onaga no bite, you go for opaka. If the opaka no bite, you go for any one of the other seven species. Ip DT: So you go after whatever bites... p KF: Fishing is very hard now. Well, you... you can't stop the other people, telling them, "Oh you guys interrupting our fishing here." Y'ou cannot do that. Like the fishing, the ocean is for everybody. And it's not only for you. When you say it's for everybody, it's everybody. Some people have the idea that the fishing is only for them and they got bad manners. But, other than that, oh well, when you tying to catch fish, you know there's no time to argue and make enemies out there. Because there's all kinds of ~ fishermen. I would say, you know some don't belong fishing, but they try to go out there and try to catch what the other people catch. p CulturallmpactAssessmentfor Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquctculture Project p. 117 of 122 DT: From the standpoint of the opelu fisherman, they say, "It's not near us." It sounds like your tazget areas are about a mile away, but still you've got the two concerns you brought up: change in the migration of the fish and then the increase of sharks. KF: (In written revisions to the transcript approved on September 9, 2008, Mr. Fukuyama added the following words. At the time, there were many articles in the local newspaper about more shark sightings in West Kawaii waters). After the interview, as I read the paper, -keep out of the water from Keahole to Kawaihae, plenty of sharks patrolling the beaches looking for food. It's happening because of the fish cage. The sharks get only the smell so they get hungry. It never happened before. Deep sea cage in the bottom will attract the bottom fish deeper (the smell and bits of food). In turn the sharks and predators will feed on the bottom fish. It will be the end of bottom fishing in this azea. Cultural Impact Assessment for Hawaii Oceanic Technology Ahi Aquaculture Project p. 118 of 122