FISH

Enormous Ahi Aquaculture Proposal

for Hawaii Needs Reality Check
Fact Sheet • March 2009

A new venture proposing to place a dozen untethered, self-powered, open-ocean

fishpens off the Big Island’s North Kohala coast is applying for a variety of per-
PLWVLQFOXGLQJDFRQVHUYDWLRQGLVWULFWOHDVHRQDFUHVRIWKHVHDZLWKWKHKRSHV
of raising tuna primarily for markets in Japan and the Mainland.1 Both the size of
the project and new technology it proposes to use raise many questions.
In the summary of the Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment (DEIS), filed by Hawaiian Ocean Technologies, Inc.
(HOTI) and made public on Feb. 23, 2009, the company
says that annual production capacity will be 6,000 tons
of ahi (Yellowfin and Bigeye tuna) each year.2 But later in
the document, an even more massive production level is
cited — 12,000 tons a year — suggesting that although the
company plans to harvest 6,000 tons annually, 12,000
tons of fish might actually be growing in the cages during
a single year.3

We know very little about important operating details

of the endeavor, and even less about how the fishpens
— called Oceanspheres — will affect marine wildlife. We
do know that similar fish farm projects worldwide have
caused problems for habitat, wild fish, water quality, and
the economies of coastal communities.4

The DEIS process facilitates public input on projects,

allowing communities and resource managers to better
understand broad potential impacts. The process is also
intended to provide information to mitigate or avoid
problems before they happen. Official comments on the
HOTI Ahi Aquaculture proposal (due by April 7, 2009)
must be responded to in the Final EIS document, and
should help answer unresolved questions and provide a
Economics
reality check on the overall viability of the project itself.
‡7KH'(,6FODLPV³EHQHILFLDOLPSDFWVIRUVRFLRHFR-
nomic conditions,” but fails to provide evidence that
Problems with DEIS/Proposed Project it will actually generate profit and revenue. Kona
Blue recently announced that their current operation
Size ³LVQRWSURILWDEOHDQG«RIIHUVQRSRWHQWLDOIRUIXWXUH
‡:LWKDSURSRVDOWROHDVHDFUHVRIRSHQRFHDQWKLV profitability,” without expansion by installing larger
project is three times the size of the existing Kona Blue pens.7 However, it is yet to be demonstrated that an
operation.5 Moreover, the expected tonnage of fish is increase in size will render open-ocean aquaculture
forty-eight times greater than that of Kona Blue.6 profitable.
 ‡3ULPDU\PDUNHWVZLOOEHIRUH[SRUWWR-DSDQDQGWKH
Mainland, though estimated amounts are not speci-
fied.8 Local food self-sufficiency is not the goal of
this project, and neither is job creation for the local
economy. The plan only projects that 22 full-time
jobs will be created by year five of the endeavor.
Effects on fish populations
‡7KHUHLVLQVXIILFLHQWLQIRUPDWLRQRQPHWKRGVRIGLV-
ease control, and potential for, or ramifications from,
spreading disease or parasites to wild fish.9
‡3UHGDWRUILVKLQFOXGLQJVKDUNVDUHNQRZQWRJDWKHU
at open ocean fish pens.10
‡7KH'(,6IUHTXHQWO\PDNHVFRPSDULVRQVEHWZHHQWKLV
project and other open-ocean aquaculture operations
in Hawaii that are much smaller and use different
technology.
Conflicts with marine mammals/
endangered species
‡7KH'(,6VWDWHVWKDW³DOORXWFRPHVRQGROSKLQVDQG
other marine mammals are unknown at this point.”11
It is crucial that any operations allowed within
Hawaiian waters protect the 22 species of marine
mammals living here, dolphins, sea turtles, sharks,
six endangered whale species and endangered monk
seals.12
‡7KHSRWHQWLDOVLWHIRUWKLVRSHUDWLRQLVMXVWRXWVLGHWKH
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
Sanctuary, and it is unclear how the operations will
affect migration patterns as whales traverse the site.13
‡7KH'(,6QRWHVWKDWVKDUNVDURXQGWKHFDJHVPD\
need to killed and removed in order for the opera-
tion to be successful. Sharks are revered in Hawaiian
cultural lure as an aumakua, a family guiding spirit
or totem.14
Conflicts with fishermen
‡6RPHILVKHUPHQH[SUHVVHGFRQFHUQVWKDW2FHDQV-
pheres will act as Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs),
drawing key species (mahimahi, ono, opelu, bottom-
fish) away from areas they normally inhabit.15
Lack of information on new Oceansphere
technology
‡7KHRFHDQVSKHUHVDUHDQHZWHFKQRORJ\IRUILVKIDUP-
ing. They are untethered fishpens that will incorpo-
rate ocean thermal energy exchange (by sucking up
water from deep below) in order to stay in place.16
This system is new and could affect the surrounding
environment in different ways than existing ocean
fish farms. Despite this, there is no discussion of im-
pacts from the ocean thermal energy exchange, and
how it may affect benthic and pelagic organisms.
‡7KHUHLVLQVXIILFLHQWGLVFXVVLRQRQSRWHQWLDOWKUHDWV
from storms or tsunamis damaging the Ocean-
spheres, or on Coast Guard’s ability to respond to
such emergencies.17
Fish food concerns
‡0DVVLYHTXDQWLWLHVRIIHHGDUHQHHGHG:KHQWKH
project scales to 6,000 tons, 12,000 tons of dried
commercial feed will be used each year.18 Each ton of
dried feed takes multiple tons more of wild fish and
soy to produce.
 Approving Agency: Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands,
3XQFKERZO6WUHHW+RQROXOX+,
Contact: Chair Laura Thielen,
7HO)D[

Consultant: Tetratech, 737 Bishop Street, Suite 3020,

+RQROXOX+,&RQWDFW*HRUJH5HGSDWK
Office of Environmental Quality Control:
‡7KH'(,6FODLPVWKDWXSWRRIIHHGZLOOEHIURP 6RXWK%HUHWDQLD6WUHHW6XLWH+RQROXOX+,
VR\RURWKHUSURWHLQDQGRQO\IURPILVKDQG
fish oil, but does not provide research evidence that
this formula can successfully rear fish or result in a
healthy fish product.19 Other tuna-farming operations
have found that it takes about twelve pounds of wild
fish in feed to produce one pound of farmed tuna.20
‡7KHVRXUFHIRUIHHGLVQRWUHYHDOHGVRLWLVQRWSRVVL-
ble to review best management practices vs. impacts
in feed production.21
‡,WLVXQFOHDUZKDWWKHFRPSRVLWLRQRIIHHGZLOOEH
*HQHWLFDOO\PRGLILHGVR\"$GGLWLYHV"3UHVHUYDWLYHV"
3ROOXWDQWV"$QWLELRWLFV"$QVZHUVDUHQHHGHGDERXW
what the farmed fish will consume, which will also
make its way into the ocean food chain from by flow-
ing through the cages.22
Cultural resources
‡6RPHRIWKRVHFRQVXOWHGIHDUHGWKDWPLJUDWLQJ
schools of opelu could be altered, disrupting tradi-
tional fishing practices and patterns.23
Conclusions and recommendations
The Hawaiian Ocean Technologies DEIS for Ahi Aqua-
culture using the new Oceanspheres technology raises nu-
merous questions that must be answered before it could
EHGHHPHGWRKDYH³1R6LJQLILFDQW,PSDFW´+27,VKRXOG
work diligently to address the various concerns, interface
with local community groups, and aim to create a project
that respects environmental resources, enhances local
food self-sufficiency and achieves economic viability.
The full Draft Environmental Impact Statement
document may be accessed at: http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.
gov/Shared 'RFXPHQWV($BDQGB(,6B2QOLQHB
Library/Hawaii/2000s/2009-02-23-HA-DEIS-Ahi-
Aquaculture.pdf
Comments are due by April 7, 2009.
Ask for a response to these issues in the final EIS. Official
comments should be sent to the Applicant, with copies to
the Accepting Authority, Consultant, and the OEQC.
7HO)D[
Endnotes
1 Hawaii Oceanic Technology. Draft Environmental Impact State-
PHQWIRUWKH$KL$TXDFXOWXUH3URMHFW.RKDOD&RDVW+DZDLL
3UHSDUHGE\7HWUD7HFK,QF'HFSLLL
2 Hawaii Oceanic Technology, DEIS, p. i.
3 Hawaii Oceanic Technology, DEIS, p. 2-29.
 +ROPHU0HWDO³6HGLPHQWDWLRQRIRUJDQLFPDWWHUIURPILVK
farms in oligotrophic Mediterranean assessed through bulk
and stable isotope (!13C and !N) analyses.” Aquaculture, 262:
/HH+DQ:HWDO³7HPSRUDOFKDQJHVLQWKHSRO\-
chaete infaunal community surrounding a Hawaiian mariculture
operation.” Marine Ecology Progress Series-DQXDU\
.UNRVHN0HWDO³'HFOLQLQJZLOGVDOPRQSRSXODWLRQVLQUH-
ODWLRQWRSDUDVLWHVIURPIDUPHGVDOPRQ´6FLHQFH,VODP0G
6KDKLGXO³1LWURJHQDQGSKRVSKRUXVEXGJHWLQFRDVWDODQGPDULQH
cage aquaculture and impacts of effluent loading on ecosystem:
review and analysis towards model development.” Marine Pollu-
tion Bulletin-DQXDU\DQG)RRG :DWHU:DWFK
³(FRQRPLF5DPLILFDWLRQVRI2IIVKRUH$TXDFXOWXUH´$SULO
 *RQVHU-DPHV³+DZDL¶LDTXDFXOWXUHOHDVHILUVWLQQDWLRQ´Hono-
lulu Advertiser, Aug 2003.
 &DOFXODWLRQVFRQGXFWHGE\)RRG :DWHU:DWFKEDVHGRQ+DZDLL
Oceanic Technology. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
WKH$KL$TXDFXOWXUH3URMHFW.RKDOD&RDVW+DZDLL3UHSDUHGE\
7HWUD7HFK,QF'HFSLDQG
 0LOOHU(ULQ³.RQD%OXHVHHNVWRFKDQJHFDJHVRUKDOWRSHUDWLRQV´
West Hawaii Today, March 2009.
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
9 See Hawaii Oceanic Technology, DEIS, p. 1-17 and 2-11.
10 Hawaii Oceanic Technology, DEIS, p. 2-10.
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
13 Hawaii Oceanic Technology, DEIS, p. 2-11.
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6SDQG³2Q¶$XPDNXD
Hawaiian Ancestral Spirits” Hawaaii Sharks, Accessed March
2009. Available at: www.hawaiisharks.com/aumakua.html
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6SWKUX
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
 6\OYLD3DXOD³&XUUHQW6WDWXVRI%OXHILQ7XQD)DUPLQJLQ1RUWK
$PHULFD´3DSHU3UHVHQWHGDW:RUOG$TXDFXOWXUH6RFLHW\¶V$TXD
2006 meeting.
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
 +DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\'(,6S
For more information:
web: www.foodandwaterwatch.org
email: info@fwwatch.org
Applicant:+DZDLL2FHDQLF7HFKQRORJ\6RXWK SKRQH'&‡&$
6WUHHW6XLWH+RQROXOX+,&RQWDFW%LOO
Spencer, Chief Executive Officer, &RS\ULJKW‹$SULO)RRG :DWHU:DWFK
7HO)D[