Senate Standing Committee on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts

We're reconvening the Committee on Water, Land, Culture and the arts on our 101pm agenda now in State Capitol Conference Room 225. Appreciate everybody's patience and bearing with us as we switched around a little bit here we were in the midst of a number of bills on the agenda, so I'll just reiterate.

Good afternoon.

We do have a handful to a small handful to go, and then we'll be voting on a number of measures before the day is out. So make sure your testimony is submitted in written form, and we'll ask you to keep your comments concise so we have time to get to everybody.

So that said, when we left off, we were on SB3034. I'm just wrapping that up.

So we'll move on to the next measure, SB2078, relating to the Department of Land and Natural Resources, which establishes a criminal penalty in monetary fines for fishing violations and clarifies that certain specimens taken regarding aquarium fish in the possession and use of prohibited explosives, electrofishing devices and poisonous substances constitutes a separate offense.

So Testifying first on SB2078, I imagine, is DLNR

Chair, Vice Chair Brian Nelson on behalf of Department of Land and Natural Resources. We stand on our written testimony. We appreciate the intent of this bill and provide some comments. Mahalo.

Thank you. Testifying next is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair Lena Alilei on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. I just wanted to clarify our comment position. OHA certainly supports increased penalties as a way to prevent further illegal poaching in the commercial aquarium industry.

But we did have a position of comment because we think that the bill needs to go further and consistent with OHA's package bill. We are asking that this bill be amended to provide for a full ban of commercial aquarium practices.

OHA adopted a ban as part of its legislative package following testimony from beneficiaries about the localized and negative negative effects that the commercial aquarium industry has in their communities and in the reefs that they see and use every day.

And we joined not only the county of Hawaii, but the county of Kauai, association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the neighborhood boards of Waimanalo, Kailua Kahulu and Kaneohe when OHA passes resolute or adopted this measure, calling on the Legislature to exercise its power to. To ban this practice statewide. Mahalo.

Thank you. Testifying next is Koolau Foundation. Thank you. Kulu Aomo on Zoom. Good afternoon.

Hi. Aloha, Chair. Vice Chair. Mahalo for reconvening I'm Olan Leimomi Fisher with Kua'aina Ulu 'Auamo, and we stand on our testimony and strong support. But we also support a statewide ban of aquarium fishing as well. So thank you very much for hearing this. Aloha. Thank you.

Up next is Moana Ohana,

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair. Mike Nakachi. I'll save time. Instead of walking on up. I stand on my written testimony.

And I'd also like to add that we also are in strong support of amending this particular bill in a way that initiates a ban on the aquarium trade, and for many reasons, because this particular trade is unenforceable.

The only way that some of these violations and perpetuities or people that have offended the law have only come in because of community support. So. So in favor of this bill, let ask that a full ban be initiated.

Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Sierra Club on Zoom. Oh, in the room.

Good afternoon, Chair, Sierra Club. We're in support with amendments on this measure. You know, I'll just say, you know, as someone who's like, as long as I remember, I've. I've fished, right? I've been in the water, fishing, diving, throw net, torching. And I can attest that we need much more management of our resources.

Just from what I've seen personally and unfortunately, and dar's limited in its capacity and staffing and so forth. And unfortunately, what they're doing now is pushing forward. This is 16 pages of regulations just to reopen the commercial aquarium collection industry that's been shut down for 10 years.

I think, you know, by amending this bill to just straight up prohibit a crime collection, which has already been banned for a decade, it will let DAR, you know, kind of shift away from this thing and then focus more on the much needed public trust responsibilities that we need them to uphold in our initial fisheries.

But happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next is For the Fishes on Zoom

Aloha Chair. Vice Chair. I'm Renee Amberger with For the Fishes, an organization that has worked on this issue for 19 years. We support this bill for steeper fines, even though enforcing limits on the aquarium trade is basically impossible.

And because any legal aquarium collection provides cover for illegal poaching, we believe that the best and most enforceable option is a total statewide ban. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify and support.

Thank you. Julie Pack.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you, Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii.

Aloha Chair. Thank you for this Opportunity to testify. My name is Antoinette Tony Marie Davis and I'll stand on my testimony in strong support of this as well as a band and Aloha Santa Inouye. Nice to see you. You handled yourselves well through quite a lively audience. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Up next is Hui. Aloha Kiholo on Zoom.

Not present Chair.

Sustainable Fisheries on Zoom.

Also not present.

Friends of Hanauma Bay. Oh, I'm sorry. They did not sign up to testify, but they did submit testimony. The next one signed up is Ko`olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club.

Chair and Members of the Committee. We're in strong support of this bill, but I think it should be statewide ban on it. And I think maybe you should look into the practice of the kapu system. Our Hawaiians are the kapu system, you know, over like 19.

In the 1970s, my husband started the LIMU project with Dr. Abbott and Dr. Doherty. They worked together on the limu. He forewarned it. He said the limu is depleting. Some of his own friends laughed at him. Today there's a limu shortage statewide. We got to start looking at our resources, what we got left.

You know, we closed up Kaneohe Bay for a few years debating with one of the commercial aquarium fishermen. And now he comes to us and said, you guys was right. But since we had the Kapu System, he says now they're starting to come back. I'm a kayaker. I'm a paddler.

I used to paddle that hobe and I could see across the reefs. You could see one reef was all yellow. Now today you'll see nothing. So we got to think about it. Our Hawaiian City Club do the Bahi Pana tours. We offered fee to the 96744 community. We got letters coming back from the schools.

Thank you very much for the tour. Although we didn't see fish, we did see hornu.

Could I ask you to summarize? Thank you. Keanu bini Medaros. Uilani Naipo.

Aloha Mai. I know it's a long day for all of us. Marine advocate for. For place based governance and ocean stewardship. Very strong support. Stand on my written testimony. This is not a matter of whether we want this or a ban. We need both.

We know that posting is going on right now and we need that added protection. But in combination, they both complement each other for the needed protection of our reefs. So please support. Mahalo.

Thanks. Testifying next is Alohi Nakachi.

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair. My name is Alohi Nakachi. I'm a Native Hawaiian indigenous scientist with a PhD from UH in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management.

I stand on my written testimony and strong support and urge that we need stronger penalties, but also urge that we have an outright ban of the aquarium trade as well. And I'd just like to highlight three key points that the aquarium trade has shown ecological, socio, economic and cultural harms.

Contemporary science looks at a baseline of decline in the 90s and shows variability today. But from a baseline of Aina momona, we are in serious decline and far from sustainable.

The aquarium trade largely exists and benefits outside of the Pa' ina with only marginal benefits in Hawaii to a small number of partisans participants and the costs are held by everyone else. The trade is also completely culturally unacceptable and disrespectful.

To remove fish for a hobbyist industry and send them out of Aina systems, particularly with compounding environmental stressors, struggles to feed Hawaii and increasing diaspora. And that. I'll leave it at that because I have a minute, but mahalo and I can take questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Chad Wiggins.

Okay. Aloha, Mai Kakou. My name is Chad Wiggins again from Waimea, Hawaii Island. I'm in support of this bill based on my experience over two decades of experience as a scientific diver with DAR and the Nature Conservancy and also as a fisherman and a father. My whole life I've loved to fish and I love to eat fish.

And my son has been taught to fish pono. But not everyone fishes pono, unfortunately, and pono fishers get punished. So when the responsible fishermen who are going out of their way to follow the regulations get punished when the laws are not enforced, there's not an incentive to follow the laws. And poachers can be reformed with better enforcement.

There are a number of studies throughout the Pacific that demonstrate this, and I am available for questions. So thank you.

Thank you. Kaike on Zoom.

Aloha. Mahalo for rescheduling today. My name is Kaikea Nakachi. I stand on my written testimony and strong support. I'm also supporting the bills to ban commercial aquarium trade as well as the bill to increase the funding for adult care. Many of us Native Hawaiian communities in West Hawaii have worked closely with doe care as Makai Watch volunteers.

And I believe it's this relationship that has allowed the various AQ poachers over these past few years to be caught. It is also why we must not only end this trade, but increase the penalties, particularly since poaching often leads to busts of Hundreds or sometimes thousands of fish. As long as they can get money.

For selling those fish, we need to be able to make those fines more to guard against their greed. I agree that a statewide ban is more enforceable and urge you all to please pass this bill with amendments to do the most good for Hawaii.

And I'll just say that Native Hawaiian communities are standing by to help DOCARE enforce these rules. Mahalo.

Thank you. Georgie Fong.

Oh my gosh.

Sorry. Not present Chair.

Oh, thanks. Elena Bryant.

Aloha. Elana Bryant testifying in support. And also I strongly urge this Committee to amend this bill to also include a ban on commercial crime collection. I was born and raised in Koolaupoco. I've served on DLNR's Kaneohe Bay Regional Council since 2021. And I come from a long line of subsistence and commercial food fishers.

And our livelihood depends on the health of our reef ecosystems, healthy and thriving fish populations and being levite apono.

When aquarium collection rates in Kaneohe bayrocket skyrocketed in 2019 and 2020, where we saw the tripling of yellow tang selection to over 40,000 animals of that species alone taken from our bay, numerous organizations in our community took immediate action. We've had robust discussions with both sides of the table present.

And as a community, we decided that the ornamental pet trade is not compatible with our community values and priorities. Numerous Koolauko community organizations pass resolutions falling for a legislative ban.

These groups include Kanohe Bay Regional Council, Kanohe Neighborhood Board, Koola Puka Hawaiian Civic Club, Koolaua Foundation, Kahalu Neighborhood Board, Kailua Neighborhood Board, Waimanalo Neighborhood Board and the association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, which represent over 60 civic clubs and 4,000 Members. I ask that you please pass this deal with amendments.

Increased fines for violations alone is ineffective when collection runs around.

Your time's up.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Looks like that is everybody who signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Good afternoon.

Good evening, Chair and Vice Chair. I join the rest of the folks here who are calling for supporting this bill and a ban on aquarium collection. I just wanted to remind the Committee. Sorry. Kylie Wager Cruz, Earth Justice.

I wanted to remind the Committee that in 2023, DLNR unanimously approved a community led petition to to ban commercial aquarium collection by administrative rule. But the AG's office later informed the board that they could not do that under the aquarium fish permit statute.

So Chair Chang later directed the community Members in this room to come to the Legislature for a legislative fix. So here we are, requesting a ban in addition to stronger enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? Please come forward.

Hello, Chair.

Hello.

Vice Chair Shane Nelson from Hoala Kalake Kuanui on Hawaii Island. And I also stand in strong support of this particular measure. Also reiterating what others are saying, that the other bill that's going out about the anti ban is also super important to to hapai with this one as well.

And the other thing too is to make sure that we are taking a look at the public trust obligations as well as we move forward. That's why we strongly support this particular bill to reinforce what the state should be assisting in resource management as well. So mahalo. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Were there others?

Excuse me, Chair. One on Zoom.

Oh. Could you identify. Did you sign up to testify?

Aloha Kai Nishiki calling in from Maui. And full support with amendments to ban aquarium fishing overall here in Maui County. Many years ago, my dad worked with a number of organizations to prevent aquarium fishing in Maui County. So Maui has been a leader in protecting our public trust resources. And we stand in full support. Mahalo.

Thank you. Please come on up.

Aloha. Malia Kipapa from Hawaii island from Kona. I am providing testimony on behalf of my Kipapo Ohana from Pahoehoe, Kona. I am in strong support against aquarium fishing, but I support this bill to ban it completely. And then also making the recommendation to amend for statewide ban because I know this is only for Hawaii Island.

But as you guys could hear, others from different islands, they also feel the same way. But I'm here to just acknowledge my support for my family. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room? Is there anyone else online?

No.

All righty. Seeing none other questions. Just real quick for DAR.

Oha Grandiosen Division of Aquatic resources.

Yeah, thanks for the penalties. In your testimony, you had raised a couple comments. Regarding. Judiciary bottlenecks. Did I get that right?

Yeah. Moving it from a petty misdemeanor to a misdemeanor might create judicial bottlenecks. How is that just through a misdemeanor? They could potentially go to court and require a jury and it might prolong the process of. Prolong the court process.

Have doe care officers have to testify that that whole thing could just delay the process for the court to go through with its criminal violations. We're expecting a lot of violations. There has been a few over the years. Yeah, but. Yeah, I wouldn't say a lot. Okay.

And then obviously we had a discussion last week, I think similar about the same subject matter anyway for you guys when you are on different islands, how do you actually regulate? I mean, how are these folks being caught? Is it just DOCARE or is?

It so like poaching cases? How have they been caught? Is that what you're asking? Well, in this case, for.

Pursuant to this bill with aquarium fish violations.

Yeah. So DOCARE would cite. Cite poacher for violations and the number of specimens. Then it goes to court for a criminal violation. And then many times we'll take it to the board for civil violation as well, where it's up to the board's discretion to do a per specimen civil violation and then for.

Well, presumably, I mean, theoretically nobody should be violating this right now because there shouldn't be activity going on. So it's not like you're catching the wrong thing if you're catching anything. Where. Where is that headed right now in the process for rules and everything in?

Terms of where are we at with the rule process? So we're in the middle of Chapter 91. The board approved us to go to public hearing. We have to go to the Small Business Review Board before we hold a public hearing. We went to the Small Business Review Board.

They asked us to do additional scoping with tour operators and asked for some additional information. So we actually go back to the Small Business Review Board tomorrow.

And then if they approve us to go forward, then we'll go to public hearing, hold the public hearing, then go back to the board for a final evaluation with the proposed rules.

Is there like a ballpark for when that reasonably would be?

I think assuming we get the support of the Small Business Review Board tomorrow, it probably would be a couple of months before we're able to hold a public hearing. And so I'm guessing sometime this summer we take it back to the board.

And then after that the board's decision is?

Yeah, then the board would decide whether to accept the proposed rules and then also authorize us to issue permits. And only seven collectors would. Would be eligible for those permits since there's only seven permittees that have gone through the EIS process successfully so far in the whole state.

Do the rules, as at least currently contemplating whatever state they're in right now, have restrictions that would be potentially violated with these penalties that we're talking about today? No, no. What would that look like?

So would these penalties be in conflict with the proposed rules? Is that that what you're asking? Oh, if you're.

Let's say if you're one of the Seven. Yes. Permittees. What would it take for you to violate an incur.

So there is annual catch limits, there's species restrictions. So they would only be allowed to collect five species. So if they collected a six species not on the white list, then they would be subject to this.

If the fishers reach their catch limit and we shut down the fishery for the year and someone was caught collecting after that shutdown, that would be subject to this. So those are the type of things that would still be in violation. Sure.

And then before we just wrap up here, what. How do you, what is that level, I guess that the rules are aiming for in terms of thresholds? What does that mean actually? How do you come up with that?

So, yeah, the board also mandated specific catch limits of the five species. So Yellow Tang, I think 100,000 fish. I don't have it in front of me. But there's specific annual catch limits and those were calculated based on historical catch. And then the board also, at least the Yellow Tang, the historical catch averaged about 200,000.

They reduced it down to 100,000 just to add more buffer, safeguard the populations.

If there's a bleaching event or something like that. Is there some basis for ensuring that there's continuity and recovery based on those numbers?

Yeah, I mean, we're monitoring the population through our diver surveys. So if we did see a population starting to decline, we do have the ability to. To reduce the catch or close catch of a certain species if it didn't look like the population was doing good for whatever reason. Fishing or bleaching event.

Yeah. How often do you guys do those surveys?

There's a number of surveys that we do that we and NOAA do. We do annual surveys on fixed transects and then NOAA every three years they have a rotation, but they're doing the whole state.

But for you guys, it's once per year.

Once per year on the fixed site. And then we have some other surveys as well that is once a year, kind of random sites scattered throughout the whole west Hawaii. But I'd say it's a kind of an annual estimate of the population. Yeah.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Other questions?

I was just going to add according to this measure on page four. Well, it also identifies the penalties from the first offense to the third or subsequent.

But further on page four, if you look at line 16 on G, it says for the purposes of this section, each fish or aquatic life specimen taking in violation of sections 18823 which is in Section 2 and 18831 shall constitute a separate offense.

So aside from what this Measure calls like $200 for first offense, 400 for second, $1,000 for a third or subsequent offense. So what does this mean?

Yeah, so if you have ten fish, you know, the first one's worth 200, the second's 400, the third through ten is a thousand. The way that I read it. Yeah. So that'd be a pretty hefty fine for just poaching 10 fish.

Okay, so. But it's a set. Constitute a separate offense from what's identified. So who makes that determination?

I think the courts could make that decision.

Yeah. Okay. The courts and then I guess the board. So you mentioned. Okay, I know that the board makes decisions in. In most of, I guess, these occurrences. So the board does actions after the court?

Yeah, so this is for the criminal offense. So it would go to the court courts first. And then usually after the courts have made a decision, then we'll take it back to the board for civil penalties, and then we've got that finding of the court to help support whatever recommendation we're making to the board.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Just one last thing.

You know, this has been quite enlightening conversation. I mean, issue generally, it's my first kind of deep dive into it, I guess you could say. But within dar. I mean, just listening to the testimony all around, there seems to be, like, direct conflict between those who are using a resource versus the risk of losing it.

How is that balanced? Because you're one agency. Is that.

Does that not make it difficult? I mean, we do our own assessments to look at the sustainability. We look at what type of regulations we can put forward to try to protect the ecosystems and respond to the concerns that we're hearing about the sustainability of the populations, the ecosystem.

In my opinion, what this issue really boils down to is people just don't think it's a good use of the resource to harvest a fish, to put it in a tank. They don't feel that that's a good use of that resource or it's in conflict with their cultural values or social values.

And I think those are all valid arguments, but from our side, we're just looking at the sustainability and what can we do to ensure the sustainability. And I think the values and social kind of calls. That's more of a policy issue that you folks or the board would really need to weigh in on.

Yeah, I mean, well, that's the question. Right.

And we've heard this from a number of the other testifiers who are, from the science side of the thing, doing a lot of the actual work in the ocean, saying that there's a lot of risk right now and there's not a lot of path for recovery if there's, you know, events that transpire.

So how, like, how do you assess that? Like, what is sustainable? I mean, it's easy to just say it, Right. We talk about it all the time. But how do you actually measure that and ensure.

Because if there's one summer, like we've seen in various, you know, areas around the islands already, I mean, that could wipe out an entire ecosystem.

Yeah. So it's essentially a risk assessment. You know, you look at the population and the amount of harvest and other threats, and you look at, okay, how much risk are we willing to take to keep this fishery forward? And, you know, this fishery is pretty low risk compared to many of our other food fisheries.

But because of our value set system, we're willing to take that risk for food and provide substance than we are to harvest a fish to put in a tank. So I think it's just kind of that balance of values.

But yeah, we look at it as a risk assessment and we think with all of the layers of regulations, it's pretty low risk that we'd go below unsustainable levels.

And lastly, for. I know the House is moving bills on this issue just generally as well. I haven't read them or anything. But between the islands, the Big island is sort of the highest concentration, I guess, of aquarium fishing. Is that right? Yes. West Hawaii. Yeah.

And then on Oahu and the other islands, are there spots where that level of risk is different because of the resources? Different.

The. The only other island that has had recent aquarium fishery and there's interest in going through the EIS process is Oahu. But yeah, Oahu is a much different management regime than West Hawaii, where you have a whole network of take and no take areas and way better fisheries data. So.

So, yeah, Oahu, the risk calculation would be different, lacking all of those different protections and management regime that we have over there.

So how does that work for you guys? How do you assess that?

So I guess just work through the process. The first is for an applicant to propose. Go through the EIS process and propose that to the board.

And if the board accepts that, then we do our own independent data analysis and look at catch limits and then take that to the board to approve issuance of permits or amend the existing rules. Yeah.

So how does that square against all the folks from where folks who formerly Worked with NOAA University doing a lot of the science out there. Saying or basically contradicting I think what your data seems to suggest as you say it.

I mean I don't see anyone from NOAA or formal former people from noaa. I know there's a lot of NOAA folks around these days. Yeah, yeah, yeah that's a good point. But you don't see those same scientists laying in on this issue.

You see those scientists weighing in on some of the important herbivores like uhuh and Kala which are way higher risk than the aquarium species that we're talking about today.

So that's not to say there's not some scientists that are concerned, but there's lots of scientists that think that this fishery is a well managed fishery under what the proposed regulations are.

Has there ever been a like internal to DAR, like I don't call it a board, but a group on the science side that whose job it is to make those evaluations and determine like?

An independent advisory body. Not at DAR, the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council, they have their own type of review but they don't do that for nearshore fisheries, just federal. But they, they do have a system set up that's.

I forget what it's called, the Science Review Committee that looks at the science and looks at the population and, and we'll make a recommendation based on what they see. Is that something we should create? Something we could look at? Yeah. Okay. Okay, thank you.

For the seven that are in violations right now. Did you say it's still pending?

There's seven permittees that have completed the EIS process and, and so they would be eligible to receive a permit if the.

But any. So that seven are not the ones that are not the violations violated.

No, no, no, no.

You have. What's your, what's the numbers for those in violations right now?

I think I can remember three poaching cases probably in the last four years aquarium specific, but that's been settled already. Some of them are still in contested cases. Two have been settled. One still in a contested case within.

The four year period started the contested.

Case that goes back probably two years, maybe three years. So yeah, it's a, it's a long process but two have, have been settled. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you Chair.

Thanks everybody. Let's move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 2973 relating to fishing which prohibits the use of. Of jug line fishing and other jug rig variant fishing methods in state waters. And testifying first we should probably just get comfortable up here is.

Excuse Me DAR, Brian Nielsen. On behalf of the Department, we stand on our written testimony. We are concerned about this fishing method and appreciate the intent and provide some comments. Omahala, thank you.

Up next, Moana Ohana.

Aloha, Mike Ako. Mike Nakachi here from Moana Ohana. I stand in strong support of having a form of a Bill that would then protect people from, or actually more so, the resources from jug fishing. And the reason for that is most lavayapono are responsible for their hook.

When you start to throw a hook on the end of a jug, you don't have any control of what's gonna bite that. It could be a monk seal, it could be a manoa, which is also protected within state law.

It could be many other critters that might not be the targeted catch that that particular levaya is trying for. So with that, that being said, I would strongly support a Bill like this to prohibit any type of jug fishing within state waters.

Can I ask a question since it's up here?

Sure.

What's jug blind fishing,

Senator Lorraine, is basically a hook and they basically throw it with a long leader and on the end some people just use Clorox bottles, some people use clipped on to a buoy and basically maybe throw a live opelu on the end and you have that opelu swimming to try. It's a bait. The bait? Yep.

Fish bites it off it goes, fish pulls it down, they use the buoyancy to. Then the fish fights against the buoyancy and the weight of the, of the buoy on the top. Then eventually the jug line comes back and the fisherman grabs the buoy, pulls his fish on. That's a successful jug.

I mean, it is, yeah. So we have currently found endangered oceanic white tips on the end of jug lines, especially in Kona where I'm from. And so these type of is an indiscriminate kill a lot of times.

I've never heard of this. I mean, I'm a swimmer and I used to go, in our old days we used to call skin diving.

Yep.

And it's not called skin diving anymore. I used to catch a bellow in west Hawaii in my young years. But I'm a swimmer and I'm a part time fisherman when my dad used to go throw netting and I, I've never heard of this term at all. So where did she, where did you get this measure from?

Did you hear about these penalties? I mean, it's kind of interesting, but yep, they're doing something terrible in Their type of fishing, I think they should go back to the old methods.

Well, that's so true. Imagine a long line with 30,000 hooks.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

Learn something every day, okay? Also signed up to testify on 2973 on Zoom is Laura Zoller.

Not present. Chair.

Thank you, Jared Levitt. Good afternoon.

Aloha Chair. Vice Chair, I'm Jared Levitt and I strongly support SB 2973. I specifically urge you to reject DLNR's proposed changes. One, the intent of the Bill is to prevent the environmental and wildlife risks caused by jug style fishing rigs.

Those risks exist regardless of whether the rig is deployed from shore or or by a person already in the water. To jug fishing gear is a homemade float system mostly constructed from household bottles. Because of this, an exemption for homemade fishing floats or bobbers could unintentionally allow the very devices the Bill is trying to prohibit.

I included photographs of jug rigs attached to dead animals in our near and offshore waters. Dead oceanic white tip sharks, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Species act. The dead endangered Hawaiian monk seal and Maine threatened sea turtles. This Bill and its original intent is critical to prevent further wildlife suffering and protect our ecosystems. Mahalo.

Mahalo. That is it for 2973. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none, are there any questions? Seeing none, thank you. Moving on to the next measure, second to last measure, 2975--excuse me--SB 2975, relating to marine life conservation districts, which authorizes DLNR to close portions of an MLCD for various periods of time and adopt rules. Testifying first is DAR.

Hello, again. Brian Neilson. On behalf of the department, we stand on our written testimony in support. You know, we're really looking for ways to be able to address carrying capacity issues in some of our marine life conservation districts. Act 31 just completed the Carrying Capacity Study for the Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District.

That MLCD, unlike others, it doesn't have a pinch point where you can regulate the amount of use since it's right on the side of the highway, so we're looking at how to implement some of the recommendations. The ability to be able to close the MLCD is one of the tools if you need to close for storm events or spawning events, that type of thing. We don't currently have the authority to do that.

I did see quite a bit of testimony from commercial operators opposing the bill, and, you know, this wasn't our intention to try to regulate commercial operators. So if there's a way for us to work with some of the commercial operators that are compromised to move this forward, we'd be willing to do that. Thank you.

I don't know, but I've been getting a lot of emails from those fishermen, and it's in opposition to this measure. Just want to--

Well, there's usually no fishing in MLCs or very mild fishing in MLCDs.

Correct. But the issue is, it authorizes to close all portions of any district various times, so there's no fear--

Just a sec so we can-- just noting time. Can we get through the rest of the testifiers and--

Okay. But there's no time scheduled. Thanks.

Up next is Chad Wiggins.

All right. Hello, again. This time I am testifying not as an individual, but on behalf of the organization, Hui Aloha Kiholo. We're a native Hawaiian organization. For the last 18 years, we have partnered closely with State Parks to help co-manage the 4,234 acre Kiholo State Park.

The ability to rest a place is vital to ensure that a place can be healthy and can heal from impacts, and this is a step in the right direction. Adaptive management is important. So you asked a great question about coral bleaching before.

2015, coral bleaching would have been a great time to reduce commercial scuba diving so that the corals didn't get crushed when they're extremely stressed. I was fortunate to participate in an invasive spearfishing event at Kealakekua, and having that boat closed to other boat-- or have the bay closed to boat traffic made that event safer, more focused, and more effective for management. And I'm happy to answer questions if needed. Thank you.

Thank you. KUA on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Olan Leimomi Fisher for Kua'aina Ulu'Auamo. We stand in strong support of this bill, and I just wanted to highlight and mahalo Malama Pupukea-Waimea for all the work they did in completing the Act 31 Carrying Capacity Study, which really seeks to benefit all MLCDs across Hawaii that are trying to build back that aina momona that we have lost. Mahalo and please pass this measure.

Thank you. Ocean Tourism Coalition on Zoom.

Not present, Chair.

Aloha. This is Zach LaPrade. Denver Coon's not available. I'll be speaking on behalf of them, if that's okay.

Oh, yeah. Can you turn your video on and join us?

Yes.

There you are. Go ahead.

You got me? Just quickly, yes. Ocean Tourism, here. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and thank you for staying late to handle these issues. We stand on our written testimony in opposition to this bill and available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Malama Pupukea-Waimea.

Sorry, Chair. Not present. Oh. Present in person.

It's okay. I'm here. Aloha. Denise Antolini, president of Malama Pupukea-Waimea. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. This is the Act 31 report that people keep referring to that was done by Malama Pupukea-Waimea and submitted through DLNR to the Legislature on January 5th.

One of the impetus for this bill is that the Pupukea MLCD is absolutely overrun with tourists. The bill is not, from my perspective, aimed at commercial activity. Let me give you a number. At the tide pools in the cove--the traditional name is called Kapo'o, not Shark's Cove--but over 10 months, we had 603,000 visitors in a very, very small, sensitive area, and so that's what we're seeking is the ability to work with DLNR to close some or all of the Marine Life Conservation District.

Again, as Brian said, we don't have a pinch point like Hanauma Bay or some other area, so we think the authority would be really, really helpful, and I do think there's other-- DOBOR already regulates commercial activity, and I think there's a way to carve that out.

Mahalo.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Save Honolua Coalition. Good afternoon.

Yeah, thanks. John Carty from Save Honolua, and we stand by our testimony, but I just wanted to add quickly that in reading the testimony from the opposition, it's all commercial and financial in nature, as if culturally environmentally sensitive MLCDs are the only place they can operate.

Honolua is a perfect example of what happens when the industry is left to regulate itself. So regulation, involvement from the DLNR, and this bill is exactly what we need. Mahalo.

Thank you. Calypso Charters on Zoom.

They are present, Chair, but I believe they've already gone.

Okay. Well, if they've gone back on--

No, no, that's me again, Chair, with the Calypso Charters, and we stand on our written testimony. Thank you. With Ocean Tourism Coalition.

And then, Kekoa Palermo.

They're not present, Chair.

Okay. That everybody? Is that everybody? Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none, are there any questions?

Excuse me, Chair. One on Zoom.

Okay. Oh. Go ahead.

Aloha chair.

Go ahead.

Oh, so sorry. Wasn't sure if it was unmuted. Kai Nishiki calling in to testify from Maui and really support this measure in Maui. Honolulua Bay has literally been love to death. And we really need the ability of DLNR to be able to close Honolulua Bay during storms. Prime example.

A- A boat came and tied up in Honolulua Bay during a storm and you know, they shouldn't have been there at all. And their boat was then beached and caused damage and-

and we just really need the ability to be able to protect marine areas like this from being loved to death and from over tourism and irresponsible folks who don't know what they're doing in a storm. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Any other questions?

Yes, Brian. I'm kind of surprised to hear the MLCDs. Why are we accepting visitors around? Or- I mean, I'm hearing something in conflict and I'm very familiar with MLCDs, and- but I'm surprised that we're allowing them within the MLCDs. Why?

Because they're- they're MLCDs because they're unique, beautiful places that attract people.

And it was created for that purpose to actually create this area, you know, for everything we can talk about. Sustenance, the clarity of the water to ensure that the disturbances for the growth of our fisheries continue over certain length of time. It's kind of like.

So visitors can go into the ML cities and they can like, if it's a tour boat, they can get off and go snorkeling.

Yeah. Some of our most popular marine areas are actually--

That's not- When it started in West Hawaii years ago when we formed the Kona side and we created the length of time, was it 10 miles or whatever from one point to another? I assumed that was like, no take, nobody goes in. I mean, I'm surprised. I mean, I really am. And shock- It's shocking.

So I don't know. I think we need. It's- It's like Kalikikua, you know, we have the visitors there, we got the issues that we've- I mean iss- big issues in Kilikikua. And so this is- And I'm just stunned. Sorry. But I thought it was a clear area that we preserved what the intentions of the MLCDs were supposed to be.

Interesting.

Yeah.

Okay. Alright, sorry. And the fishermen, the local fishermen, and they know that, so they stay away. But then what? But we're allowing the- the visitors to go in and do what they want.

The calls that I've had from our fishermen and I support them as well because most of them, the majority, that's to put food on their table and- and they stay away from those areas. They know they have to stay away.

But they're also concerned about this because now they're- they're worried that are any other places that's going to be enlarged so that it'll take away their fishing areas that they go outside.

Yeah. So my reading of the bill, this would only affect MLCD, so it wouldn't affect any existing fishing practices if this was to pass.

Okay. So the calls that I'm having though are from our neighbor, I mean our friends and families and neighbors that are concerned who are the regular fishermen. They're concerned because they're not sure if this is particular. This particular bill is- is within just the MLCDs then.

Yeah, it just applies to MLCD, so--

Okay, I'm sure they're watching us on Zoom because they're worried about it. So guys out there, you guys can be thankful that it seems like it doesn't affect your Kuleana areas. Okay. We got work to do with visitors going in. Okay. Alright.

I just- one follow up question for Zach, still online?

Yes. Chair?

Yeah, just- Oh, there you are. To the testimony about the Pupukea MLCD having a crazy number of people. Is that something that, that's not the situation that you are opposing regulating if I'm hearing your.

No, I think Brian, you know, at the tail end of his testimony, you know, said that this particular bill was geared towards- I mean, we have a lot of limitations in the amount of people that can go, the number of boats and go and the time they can be in there.

So I think that Brian's last comment was to help, you know, adjust this bill. So it does apply to that MSL MLCD because it sounds like they are having a big problem. And so that's the conversation I've had with Brian.

I know there's some other people on the call with Honolulua Bay, but I think that that's just kind of what spun off from the bill language being a little too overly broad.

Okay, thank you. Alright, thanks.

Let's move on to the last measure and then we'll go into voting SB 2084 relating to MLCDs, which requires DLNR to conduct a Marine Life Conservation District carrying capacity program. On 2084, I believe, DAR, if I had to guess.

I'm Brian Nielsen, on behalf of the Department, we stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Nature Conservancy. Thank you, Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. I want to stand on our testimony, but I- If you notice, it says with caution. We opposed Senate Bill 2975 that you just heard mostly due because of the unfettered discretion that that enables to DLNR. These MLCDs are a look don't take. They're well respected by the commercial voting organizations.

This bill, however, we support because unlike Senate Bill 2975, it's data driven. The only caution that we have with it is carrying capacities is a- it's broad, is it physical, is it ecology, is it effective, is it social? Carrying capacities is a scientific. There's lots of different equations for it, how this gets done.

What we like about this bill is it includes us. So we support this with- with caution. It needs to be something that we do together. So I appreciate the time to testify. Thank you so much. We support this.

Thank you. Up next is Malama Pupukea. If you'd like to be brief.

Denise Antolini with Malama Pupukea-Waimea. We had the opportunity to do a carrying capacity study through DAR and related to what the speaker just said, there are many different kinds of carrying capacity. We did one that was biological, looking at the impact of visitors on the marine life. That was the approach that we took.

That was an intent of the legislation. I do think this is a great bill. You're going to need a lot of resources to carry it out. This was a $290,000, 3 year study and we could only do a small portion of the MLCD. So support.

I think it's a great opportunity to collaborate, but it needs a substantial budget. Science costs money and hopefully you'll have a budget if it keeps moving. Mahalo.

When was that made?

What's that?

When was that created? The plan, your study.

We just finished the- it was reported to the Legislature January 5th. So we started in 2023.

That was last year?

Yeah. No, the legislation passed in 2022. Took us three years to complete it, working with DAR and then just got it last month.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Real new.

Real new. Yeah, that's--

Fresh.

Fresh.

Okay.

Plenty of time to read.

Okay.

Okay. Hui Aloha Kiholo.

Not present Chair.

Okay. Aloha. On behalf of Hui Aloha Kiholo. We support this bill and we would encourage the examination of carrying capacity studies that are inclusive of cultural use, including those by Natalie Kuroshima et al.

Those studies are very important metrics to maintain both a healthy environment, a healthy community, and the quality of a place and the function of a place. So carrying capacity is going to be really variable based on whether in a rural community or an urban environment. And so the study needs to be designed appropriately for each place. Thank you.

Thank you.

And then lastly back to Zach online.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Yes. I just want to say quickly, we stand our written testimony and- and we support this bill. All that we ask is that we be involved in the process. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Alright, there's no further questions.

We need one more. Oh, you're here.

Here. Alright.

We're gonna take a- a very, very short recess.

Sorry.

All right. Reconvening the Committee on Water, Land, Culture, and Arts for decision making on our agendas for today, beginning with our 1:01 PM agenda and SB 3019, relating to consumer protection. This is prohibiting the sale of tickets at higher prices than the original price. Recommendation is to move us forward with amendments. Appreciate the discussion we had.

We'd like to just adopt a similar provision, which is in the law in Rhode Island, which limits resale to no more than $3 above the original sale price. And we'll note—we'll note that in the Committee Report as well to, to sort of explain why, but let us go on to the Consumer Protection and Judiciary committees for further consideration.

There's no discussion, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to SB 3311 relating to the Strength in Hawaii Homes program. Like to move this forward as well. Just making technical amendments and defecting the date.

Any discussion? Any questions? None.

Chair's recommendation to pass SB 3311 with amendments with, let's see, four Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2979 relating to community co management agreements. This is a great outpouring of support from the community. So thanks everybody. We'd like to recommend moving this forward with amendments. We'll make technical amendments, adopt DLNR's recommendations allowing for direct negotiation- direct negotiation based on 171-43.1 and allowing multiple organizations to co manage.

That's the language from HB 2218. We'll also note in the committee report. Oh, excuse me. We'll add a defective date on as it goes forward. Just noting in the committee report that the measure enables 65 year terms for lease agreements including disposal of public land.

So we'd like to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that to make sure there's no issues there. There's no discussion on that then. Vice Chair.

Yes. Chair's recommendation on SB 2979 to pass with amendments with four Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure, Senate Bill 2351 relating to the State Park Special Fund. I'll be deferring this measure at this time. Sorry, 2351. Moving on to SB 2918 relating to HCDA. This requires HCDA to establish a community action center in Chinatown. I'd like to recommend moving this forward with amendments, making technical amendments, adding in a defective date.

We'll put in the Committee report we'd like to—I think the intent, as this goes on to Ways and Means, is if HCDA doesn't want to do this, then we're going to find it a new home, a different agency, which we've started a conversation on.

So, for the moment, like to just keep it alive for our colleague whose community this is.

Yes.

Question.

Okay. So, are you doing the—removing HCDA, but in the Committee report or with part of the?

For the moment, we'll just do technical amendments and defective date because we don't have time to, you know, chop...

So, HCDA still will be on then?

For the moment, but we'll note in the Committee report the intent is to find another agency to take the lead.

In the Committee report?

Right.

You'll be noting that then. Otherwise, I was going to vote no. But if you're going to include that in the Committee report, then I'll go with reservations. Okay.

Thank you. Any other discussion?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to SB 3029 relating to community development. This is the Summer Streets Program. Like to blank out the appropriation, add in a defective date and let Ways and Means see if they can find some funds. Recommendation passed with amendments. There's no discussion.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB 3029 to pass with amendments with four Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair, with one excused.

Thank you. Moving on. We'll be deferring SB 3148 as we had mentioned earlier in the hearing. So move on to SB 2916. This is the State Archives funding bill. We'd like to blank out the appropriation and add in a defective date. Any discussion? If not, Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2916 to pass with amendments with four Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair, with one excused.

Thank you. Moving on to 2692 recommendations to move this on to the Ways and Means Committee. Again blanking out the appropriation and adding in a defective date.

Okay.

There's no discussion on that.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2692 to pass with amendments with four Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair, with one excused.

Thank you. SB 3034, we're going to defer at this time. There are other measures moving similar. Moving on to SB 2078 relating to the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Appreciate everybody's testimony on this one. We'd like to make some amendments. We'll address OHA's concerns. So we'll add to the measure 188.

Add to 188-31 A and B, except as prohibited by law, including but not limited to rules prohibiting aquarium collection that may be promulgated pursuant to HRS section 190-3. We'll amend the preamble accordingly and add technical amendments.

What this basically does is does not prohibit aquarium fishing, but it gives Board of Land and Natural Resources the decision. So it takes it out of our jurisdiction and lets them pursuant to DARs process. Figure that out. Any questions or comments? If not, Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2078 to pass with amendments with four Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair, with one excused.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2973 relating to fishing. This is the jug line bill. This is new, so I recognize there's some questions.

We'd like to, like to recommend moving it to Judiciary Committee with amendments adopting clarifying language, exempting store bought floats, bobbers, and hat that are cast with a rod and reel and used while hand pole fishing, and adding in a defective date and see if that changes any of the testimony in the potential next Committee.

Any questions on that?

And I assume, Mr. Chair, that if this Bill passes then it becomes part of Do Care then to monitor and be part of policing.

I believe so.

[Roll Call]

Moving on to SB 2975. This is Marine Life Conservation Districts. Appreciate the commentary from everybody. Recognize a lot of the testimony, actually, probably like 99% of it, I think, was from neighbor island commercial operators. And recognizing from the testifiers, this was really focused at just the Oahu Pupukea MLCD.

I'd like to amend it and recommend narrowing the measure just to Oahu for those purposes and adding in a defective date. So theoretically, I think most of the folks who had raised concerns would not be affected by the bill at all. Any questions about that? If not, Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2975 to pass with amendments with four Members present. Any voting with reservations? I will go with reservations on this measure. Any voting no? Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And finally for this agenda, SB 2084 relating to marine life conservation districts. This is the analysis for this. Like to- excuse me. Recommend passing with amendments, defecting the date and just noting the appropriation is already blank.

One second, please. Okay.

2084 with amendments.

Yeah. Okay.

And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, will you also speak on the amendments again, please?

Oh, yeah, it's defecting the date and then we'll note. Well, just note for our purposes that the appropriation is already blanked out as it goes to the Ways and Means Committee.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB 2084 to pass with amendments with four Members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, so that's our 1:01 PM agenda. So, we'll go into our 1:02 PM agenda. We've got just a few bills on this one, beginning with Senate Bill 17 relating to wildfire mitigation.

I need to, we need to redo this. I need to complete it later. So. Yeah. Okay. All right.

So, the recommendation will be to move this. This was jointly heard to the Public Safety Committee. So.

One second. This is—okay. All right.

Okay. So, the recommendation on SB 17 is to pass with amendments, for this measure previously heard...establish a working group in DLE to be administered by the Office of the State Fire Marshal to require the working group to be comprised of subcommittees and identify clear deliverables, require the working group to integrate cultural stewardship and the development of certified wildfire resilience and stewardship standards that encourage good faith compliance and responsible land management, and provide clear, legally defensible guidance for the state's communities.

I'll expand the working group's membership to include a chairperson of the PUC, a representative of the State Fire Council rather than the Fire Chief of each county, a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner to be invited by the chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, a large landowner to be invited by the Fire Marshal.

Replacing OPSD with the Office of State Fire Marshal as the entity responsible for providing administrative support to the working group.

Extending the deadline for the working group to submit a report to the Legislature to 30 days prior to the regular session of 2028 and appropriating funds to the Office of State Fire Marshal, rather than Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, for the administrative expenses of the working group and inserting an effective date of July 1, 2050, as a defective date and making technical, non-substantive amendments.

You were gonna defer this to 2:19 because of this?

No, no.

That's it.

That's it.

You got it.

So with amendments.

So, okay, all right. So, no deferment for tomorrow then. Okay.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation districts. We'd like to recommend moving this forward with amendments. In particular, this measure had contemplated a process, as we discussed before, that the agencies, in particular, OPSD, did not want to be made a decision maker within.

So, we'll fix that and swap that out so that they're providing additional support but not going to be the decider for what constitutes viable next steps.

We'll also put in language that adds to the considerations, the preservation of beaches in these various communities, and engages not just the shoreline owners themselves, but the surrounding businesses and community who also rely on those beaches and part of their fabric of their community.

And we'll make—we'll clarify the process so that these shoreline adaptation pathways plans and that process becomes much more clear, where folks can bring that forward, they can work with the departments, and ultimately, the Board of Land and Natural Resources will have to be presented with it and have to approve anything before any of that goes forward.

And then we'll add in a defective date.

Okay. You not going to defer to tomorrow then?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. Got to move it.

Okay. All right.

Sorry about that.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2937 relating to search and rescue. Spoke with the author of this measure, so, who recommended deferring for the moment. And we'll work on it with reso and our working group later on this session. SB 3007 relating to culture and arts. This is establishing Office of Creative Innovation.

I'd like to recommend moving this forward, but clarifying the intent of this measure, its purpose, duties, reporting requirements, allow the office to contract for services, add a couple positions, blank appropriation, clarify the preamble to reflect all that, make tech amendments.

And the intent here is to create a little bit of capacity in the creative and innovative space that other states and other jurisdictions have where they can actually have someone who's the point, helping to generate and create not only just projects, but also improvements for the way different departments do things and be able to help improve other departments' products and services in kind of creative, innovative way, pushing the boundaries just a little bit.

So, we're adding in the preamble of a number of examples of what that entails from other states. It's nontraditional stuff. For example, just throw one out there, there's an airport that one of our delegations went to visit. Rather than just having people mowing the runways as usual, they actually had a whole bunch of robots doing the work.

Yeah, little roombas doing it.

But the interesting thing out of that, which is the intent of starting from a non-traditional place and highlighting these best practices from other places, is that by mowing it more consistently, they basically had fewer bugs, which meant there were fewer birds, which meant there were fewer bird strikes at the airport, which meant you're not only saving lives, but you're saving millions of dollars.

And the cool thing was they were able to do it while the robots automatically did it themselves and kind of like fun patterns into the runway. So, it was fun for visitors coming to lend.

So, stuff like that, that's never going to be a priority in any Department but could be an idea that's presented to departments to help them improve their processes—was the intent. So, yeah.

Well, let me share with you. We have a little robot at Hilo Airport. Instead of having the maintenance guys with the vacuum going on to this, to the concrete lobby areas, the robot has been doing it. So, we got a little guy out there. We need to give him a name. I'm working on it. Okay.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. And for the last measure today, SB 3146, relating to the Department of Land and Natural Resources, recommendation is to make tech amendments and add in a defective date as this goes on to WAM.

[Roll Call]

I'll just say thank you so much to everybody for your patience and thank you to the Committee Members.

We are adjourned.