Malaekahana Park Managers Stay While DLNR Seeks a New Lessee<\/b><\/p>\n
The Friends of Malaekahana (FOM), which has managed the 36-acre Kahuku section of the Malaekahana State Recreation Area for nearly 20 years, on O`ahu\u2019s north shore, has dodged eviction, but its future there is still far from secure.<\/p>\n
At the meeting of the Board of Land and Natural Resources in late January, the Division of State Parks recommended ousting FOM, restarting its search for a long-term lessee, and issuing a revocable permit to a new entity to run the park until a lessee is selected. It also recommended authorizing the Land Board chair to collect money from FOM for one of the park\u2019s cabins that burned a few years ago.<\/p>\n
But after hearing heartfelt testimony from several supporters and members of FOM and a lengthy explanation by FOM director Ipolani Tano of its fractured, and in the board members\u2019 eyes, hamstrung efforts to manage the park, the Land Board voted to issue a revocable permit to FOM allowing it to stay on for the next several months.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, FOM must work with State Parks to address wastewater and cesspool violations identified by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Health in 2009. If the Department of Land and Natural Resources does not shut down its large capacity cesspools (LCC) by next month, the DOH could fine it $25,000 per violation per day.<\/p>\n
Despite the threat of fines, as well as a number of other outstanding management concerns, Big Island Land Board member Robert Pacheco said, \u201cI do have a problem with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.\u201d He added that he doubted State Parks could care for the park any better. \u201cI don\u2019t see it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
A Long Time Coming<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
As both oral and written testimony showed, FOM supporters couldn\u2019t understand why the DLNR would want to close the park — \u201ca gem to our community,\u201d according to one young woman — and evict the Friends. Some of them speculated it was for economic or political reasons.<\/p>\n
They were wrong.<\/p>\n
In addition to the potential fines by the EPA\/DOH, State Parks administrator Dan Quinn told the Land Board that FOM had conducted unauthorized grading, construction, and landscaping; owed the division thousands of dollars in overdue water bills; allowed a historic cabin to burn without having fire insurance; and, without a permit or a lease for the past six years, had no legal right to be there.<\/p>\n
\u201cManagement at Malaekahana is a mess. We should have gotten to it earlier. … It languished and now it needs to be addressed,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
In 2004, FOM was the sole bidder in response to the division\u2019s request for qualifications\/request for proposals (RFQ\/RFP) to find a long-term lessee. Although State Parks tried as late as 2007 to issue FOM a lease, disputes over requirements, including an appraisal, an environmental impact statement, and a development agreement, killed the deal. Because the FOM fell behind on its water bill in the meantime, the division could not renew FOM\u2019s permit before it expired at the end of 2006.<\/p>\n
Even so, FOM continued to manage and improve the property, grading cabin sites and installing yurts, despite letters from State Parks to cease and desist.<\/p>\n
Then in April 2009, the DOH and the EPA notified State Parks that Malaekahana contained ten unpermitted wastewater systems and five active LCCs, which were banned by the EPA in 2005. The parties later agreed on an action plan, which called for the closure of the illegal facilities next month.<\/p>\n
A Bad Marriage<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
To O`ahu Land Board member John Morgan, State Parks may have expected too much from its manager.<\/p>\n
In response to Morgan\u2019s question about why there weren\u2019t more bidders in 2004, Quinn noted that the improvements his division included in the RFP would have cost $4 million, in addition to the cost of doing an environmental impact statement.<\/p>\n
Morgan suggested that the division had proposed a business model that made little sense.<\/p>\n
\u201cNobody else, maybe with a sharper pencil, threw their hats in. Maybe it was an unreasonable goal,\u201d Morgan said.<\/p>\n
In her rebuttal to Quinn\u2019s statements, Tano agreed with Morgan, stating that the request for proposals was \u201cpoorly conceived.\u201d She also painted a picture of FOM as an organization committed to caring for Malaekahana, but thwarted by bureaucrats.<\/p>\n
She said FOM had removed 32 abandoned vehicles and 50 tons of trash from the park, invested $2 million in its water system and $250,000 in yurts, employed nine permanent and eight casual workers, and hosted more than 35,000 visitors a year. In total, she said, FOM had spent $4 million on improving the park. She added that $500,000 in grant funds for further improvements had to be returned because FOM lacked tenancy, a situation that led to the cabins becoming dilapidated.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe were told we\u2019re not authorized to fix them. We\u2019re embarrassed by the cabins,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
The FOM had tried since the mid-1990s to get the state to allow it to restore the Kawananakoa cabin that eventually burned because of faulty wiring, she continued. In 2008, the FOM sent the DLNR four emails over eight months regarding its tenancy, with no response, she said.<\/p>\n
\u201c[Former DLNR director] Laura Thielen only responded after the cabin burned down, blaming us and saying that we owe $6,000 for the water bill,\u201d Tano said. \u201cI take extreme offense to those statements.\u201d<\/p>\n
The FOM just wants is to be treated fairly, Tano said, pointing out that State Parks has issued long-term leases to other non-profits to manage its facilities and not required them to pay for an appraisal or conduct an EIS.<\/p>\n
Zane Bouvette, who provided FOM with the yurts, claimed that State Parks staff has a \u201cvendetta\u201d against park manager Craig Chapman.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe were stonewalled and screwed every step of the way,\u201d Bouvette said.<\/p>\n
To Kahana resident Jim Anthony, FOM was entitled to a long-term lease. \u201cThey\u2019re not perfect. They\u2019ve made some mistakes, [but] done essentially good work. Community support, money … those things don\u2019t often come together in one package,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Working it Out<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
\u201cMuch has been said. … Regardless, we have no permit in place right now. We need to have a decision,\u201d Quinn told the board after the public testimony ended.<\/p>\n
He said his division intends to keep the park open and undeveloped, however, it would like to make some improvements.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe want to make sure they\u2019re done legally. We don\u2019t want to be surprised,\u201d he said, referring to FOM\u2019s past actions. \u201cConstruction of eco-cabins is not treading lightly.\u201d<\/p>\n
To Morgan, the FOM had made a good case.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are obviously issues of compliance. Accompanying all that is this bad relationship. I would like to see both parties adopt a win-win solution … rather than a burn the bridges right now kind of approach,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
That being said, Morgan thought the park needed improving and supported State Parks\u2019 recommendation to reissue an RFQ\/RFP for a new park manager.<\/p>\n
Board member Pacheco didn\u2019t seem to think all the blame for the park\u2019s problems should be laid at FOM\u2019s feet.<\/p>\n
\u201cAny relationship that\u2019s not working, both sides are bringing something to it. … You can\u2019t put the cesspool stuff on them when they don\u2019t have a legal agreement [to fix things],\u201d he told Quinn. \u201cThey\u2019ve never had a functional lease to put in millions in capital improvements.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the end, with the understanding that all of the LCCs would shut down as scheduled and that the FOM would work with the department on resolving all compliance issues, the Land Board unanimously approved a six-month revocable permit for FOM. The board also authorized its chair, William Aila, to issue a request for qualifications\/request for proposals for a long-term park manager, appoint an evaluation committee, evaluate proposals, and select the best offerer.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Standoff Over Seawall Nears Resolution<\/b><\/p>\n
One can never be too careful when buying beachfront property in Hawai`i. California resident Tom McConnell is finding that out the hard way.<\/p>\n
In 2002, McConnell\u2019s company, TLM Partners, Ltd., bought an old 1930s-era house along Niu beach, knowing that the attached lanai encroached on state land. He told the Land Board in January that he did not realize that the fast land and 6-foot high seawall makai of his lanai were also encroachments. He learned that only after he began the process of rebuilding the old house.<\/p>\n
A shoreline certification, often required for work in coastal areas, revealed that the wall and some of the land behind it sat beyond his property line. Believing he needed an easement to keep the wall, which was built pre-1950 and fronts several properties, McConnell sought and received one from the Land Board in 2008. Before seeing the easement document, McConnell paid the DLNR the cost of the easement: $135,135.<\/p>\n
But after reading the final document, which required him to post signs on the wall announcing it was public property and obtain permits to maintain or repair the wall, he wanted out. And he wanted his money back.<\/p>\n
\u201c[D]ue to personal reasons, including health issues and the fact they no longer had the ability to travel to Hawai`i to reside at the property, the McConnells decided not to proceed with rebuilding,\u201d wrote McConnell\u2019s attorney Gregory Kugle in a January 26 letter to the Land Board.<\/p>\n
In previous correspondence with the DLNR, Kugle had further argued that the land behind the wall was not fill, but accreted land, and, therefore belonged to McConnell. The wall, Kugle claimed, belonged to the state. The DLNR disagreed and was not willing to let McConnell walk away with his money.<\/p>\n
The Land Board first heard McConnell\u2019s case on June 9, 2011. Some board members were sympathetic to his plight and were uncomfortable keeping money for an easement that was never executed. The board voted 3-2 to return the money, but because a minimum of four votes is needed to pass a motion, the matter was deferred.<\/p>\n
After McConnell and the Land Division failed to settle the matter, the issue returned to the Land Board on January 27. Staff recommended that the Land Board either deny McConnell\u2019s request or return the money and authorize its chair to execute an easement document and a real property lien, for $135,080, that runs with the land.<\/p>\n
McConnell said he could not support a lien because it would interfere with refinancing. \u201cThe bank would require it to be satisfied,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
To Big Island board member Robert Pacheco, the board simply could not ignore the encroachment.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor me, the cat\u2019s kind of out of the bag. … You\u2019re going to have to deal with this easement one way or another,\u201d he told McConnell.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou\u2019re going to have a problem getting rid of a property with an encroachment,\u201d Maui board member Jerry Edlao added.<\/p>\n
Without an easement in place, the DLNR would have no choice but to pursue a violation case, Land Division administrator Russell Tsuji said. To which Kugle responded, \u201cShould the state choose to do enforcement, you would have to prove who built that wall, that it was not a state or territory project.\u201d<\/p>\n
After an executive session, Kaua`i Land Board member Ron Agor suggested imposing a first mortgage instead of a lien, which McConnell seemed to support.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat sounds more attractive than a straight lien,\u201d McConnell said.<\/p>\n
Deputy attorney general William Wynhoff, however, recommended deferring the matter because he needed to ensure that it would be legal to award an easement that won\u2019t be paid for until the property is sold.<\/p>\n
Kugle said he had \u201ca large problem with kicking this can down the road.\u201d And in the end, the Land Board voted to return McConnell\u2019s money, but directed the DLNR to work with him to perfect a lien and easement. Should they fail, the department was directed to initiate an enforcement action within 30 days of the board\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n
Pacheco alone opposed the motion.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
Board Approves Hearings on Caps for Aquarium Fish<\/b><\/p>\n
David Goode, the sole dissenter, just wasn\u2019t comfortable endorsing rules proposed for aquarium fish collection that had been largely, if not solely, drafted by collectors.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve never seen the department wholesale take proposed rules by a commercial entity. Usually our department has done some analysis,\u201d he said before the final vote.<\/p>\n
On January 13, the rest of the Land Board approved a recommendation by the DLNR\u2019s Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) to hold public hearings on the proposed rules, which establish gear restrictions and daily take limits for O`ahu collectors. Last year, a group of collectors created the rule package after the state Legislature failed to impose a statewide ban.<\/p>\n
O`ahu Land Board member John Morgan applauded the move to establish rules for the industry, but asked DAR\u2019s Alton Miyasaka whether the current level of aquarium fish collecting on O`ahu was sustainable.<\/p>\n
\u201cGood question,\u201d Miyasaka said. Having reviewed catch data for the past 30 or so years, Miyasaka said, he believed it was.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe way they fish … they only catch what they need,\u201d he said, adding that the traditional measure of whether a fishery is sustainable — catch per unit effort (CPUE) — doesn\u2019t apply to aquarium fishing. The wide range of species targeted by collectors also makes it difficult for DAR to assess fishing impacts, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe cannot do a species by species assessment. That would take $50 million,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Under the proposed rules, a collector would be limited to the following daily limits:<\/p>\n
A fishing vessel would be allowed to hold no more than three daily bag limits, regardless of how many collectors are on board. Collecting ornate, oval, or reticulated butterflyfish would be prohibited.<\/p>\n
Jerry Isham, who helped draft the rules, assured the board that his fellow collectors did not create \u201cB.S. limits\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis package is an awesome package,\u201d he said. Although collecting has allowed him to pay for his child\u2019s tuition to Kamehameha School, \u201cnot one fisherman in this room is getting rich off this trade,\u201d he said. \u201cRight now, there is no resource issue. [It\u2019s] just fishermen taking a step in the right direction.\u201d<\/p>\n
In her testimony to the board, Inga Gibson of the Humane Society of the United States pointed out a flaw in the proposal: without limiting the number of fish collectors, daily take limits are meaningless.<\/p>\n
Gibson also argued that the proposed limits are too high and often exceed the current catch levels. For example, the average number of kole caught between 2007 to 2009, when divided among the 40 or so active collectors on O`ahu, was less than one per day, she said.<\/p>\n
Land Board chair William Aila, a former collector himself, acknowledged that the DLNR may need to establish a limited entry program at some point.<\/p>\n
Aila was not so sympathetic to testimony from dive master and activist Rene Umberger. When Umberger cited a study that found that aquarium fish collectors overfished reefs in west O`ahu after storms in the 1990s, Aila countered that the absence of fish was due solely to the fact that the storms destroyed all of the finger coral.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fish simply weren\u2019t there to harvest, he said. \u201cI\u2019m saying hurricanes caused yellow tang collection to shift from O`ahu to Kona.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s not what the study says,\u201d Umberger replied.<\/p>\n
Aila later challenged, \u201cIf your concern is the reef health, why have you not expressed concern over consumptive users who take the very same species?\u201d<\/p>\n
To this, Umberger said, \u201cI don\u2019t think these animals should be used as ornaments.\u201d<\/p>\n
Divers, fishers, and environmentalists from Maui, Kaua`i, and Hawai`i island who were concerned about the precedent the rule package would have on the rest of the state asked the board not to send it out for public hearings. Maui County has already banned selling aquarium fish, and Kaua`i and Hawai`i counties support a statewide ban.<\/p>\n
Willie Kopiko of the Hawai`i fishing village of Mo`ili`ili expressed his frustration with aquarium collectors on his island, claiming they have depleted fish stocks he relied on for food.<\/p>\n
\u201cNow I gotta go South Point fo\u2019 get tings for eat,\u201d he said. He added that he has reported to the DLNR collectors fishing in no-take zones established by the DLNR, to no avail.<\/p>\n
Aila said that everyone agrees that the DLNR needs to improve its enforcement and Isham supported Kopiko\u2019s proposal for a no-tolerance policy for violators.<\/p>\n
But Aila\u2019s wife, Melva, expressed her disdain for those from the outer islands giving advice on the management of O`ahu resources.<\/p>\n
The board ultimately chose not to add any language to the rule package that would cap the number of collectors on O`ahu. Kaua`i member Ron Agor did try to address concerns that DAR had presented little to no scientific information supporting the various proposed caps. (The staff report to board was a mere three paragraphs long.)<\/p>\n
If and when DAR returns to the Land Board for final approval, Agor said before the final vote, he wants DAR to present data supporting the claims of fish collectors that the caps are sustainable. He added he would also consider limiting the number of fish collecting licenses and closing certain areas.<\/p>\n
If, after holding public hearings, the Land Board or DAR decide to significantly change the rules, they must go out for more public hearings.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf it means writing the rules again … then do so. We need to vet this properly,\u201d Agor said.<\/p>\n
This year, the Legislature has before it again several bills that would limit or ban aquarium fish collecting and sales. If any become law, action by the Land Board to adopt rules could be moot.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/b><\/p>\n
DOBOR to Share Data for NOAA Fishing Surveys<\/b><\/p>\n
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will be better able to target is recreational fishing surveys now that the Land Board has decided to allow the DLNR\u2019s Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation to share some of the information it collects on vessel owners.<\/p>\n
Quantifying recreational catch is crucial to fisheries management and NOAA has been seeking the state\u2019s help for years, but until now the state had withheld that information, citing privacy reasons.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere was a question whether we could disclose that information,\u201d DOBOR administrator Ed Underwood told the board.<\/p>\n
But under an agreement approved by the Land Board on February 10, DOBOR may now supply NOAA with information on which of its non-commercial boaters fish recreationally. In return, NOAA is providing $100,000 to upgrade DOBOR\u2019s online vessel registration system.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn order for us to get the money, we have to disclose. It\u2019s going to be a win-win for both sides,\u201d Underwood said. Without DOBOR\u2019s information, NOAA has to collect recreational fishing data the hard way.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe literally go through the phone book. The first question we ask is, \u2018Do you fish?\u2019 We reach two percent of the population. It\u2019s very inefficient,\u201d said Michael Tosatto, administrator for NOAA\u2019s Pacific Islands Regional Office.<\/p>\n
With DOBOR\u2019s help, NOAA can now target boaters who checked a box on their vessel registration form noting that they fish recreationally.<\/p>\n
\u201cOur survey becomes vastly more efficient,\u201d Tosatto said.<\/p>\n
Underwood added that the information would only be used for survey purposes and would not be distributed.<\/p>\n
Now that NOAA has access to the state\u2019s information, Hawai`i fishers may be exempt from registering with the National Saltwater Angler Registry, Tosatto said. (Fishers in states, such as Hawai`i, without a licensing program are required to register if they use federal waters.) What\u2019s more, the exemption saves Hawai`i fishers from having to pay the program\u2019s $15 registration fee, a DOBOR report states.<\/p>\n
Supporting the agreement was Kitty Simonds, executive director for the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, which advises NOAA.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are a regional council. Everything should be done regionally and locally. … The state should be collecting this information so our fishermen shouldn\u2019t be reporting to the national government,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Teresa Dawson<\/b><\/p>\n
Volume 22, Number 9 — March 2012<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Malaekahana Park Managers Stay While DLNR Seeks a New Lessee The Friends of Malaekahana (FOM), which has managed the 36-acre Kahuku section of the Malaekahana State Recreation Area for nearly 20 years, on O`ahu’s north shore, has dodged eviction, but … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,50],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-board-talk","category-march-2012"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/508\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}