The city Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) should have rejected Turtle Bay Resort’s supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) because it fails to accurately report the potential impacts of the proposed resort expansion.

Rather than follow the law and compare potential impacts against the "no action alternative," Turtle Bay specifically rejected and refused to study that alternative in the draft SEIS.

The "no action alternative" is what would be if the resort continued as is, without expansion.

Only after objections from numerous organizations and agencies did Turtle Bay add feeble comments to the final SEIS, such as "The No Action Alternative will have less impact."

This SEIS is structured to accentuate how much building will not occur, rather than what is actually proposed: quadrupling the size of the resort. Turtle Bay argues that by building 60 percent fewer units than previously proposed, substantial environment impacts are reduced and, therefore, mitigated. This turns logic on its head and renders useless the SEIS process.

What is missing from the SEIS is a clear picture of how the existing hotel operations and impacts might look if expansion does not occur. This is the baseline that must be used to compare impacts, not an outdated plan to build 4,000 resort units that the developers know will never be built.

The existing hotel has become successful and it will continue to be a major economic component in the region, whether or not additional hotel rooms and residential units are ever built. The final SEIS touts economic benefits of expansion, but one has to ask, "Compared to what?" Because the SEIS is structurally flawed, this and most other relevant questions are not answered.

Meanwhile, a working group created by the governor and supported by concurrent resolution of the Legislature has been negotiating with Turtle Bay on conservation easements for the undeveloped lands.

Conservation easements would result in the preservation of Kawela Bay and Kahuku Point for the benefit of future generations of residents and the environment, in perpetuity. Kawela Bay is known for its beauty, but the Kahuku Point area could be even more valuable as open space. This coastline, along with the neighboring James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, provides critical habitat for endangered birds and monk seals.

According to the working group’s recently published report, "progress has been made in the state’s negotiations with the Turtle Bay Resort." Negotiations are ongoing and the report recommends the governor target $40 million in the upcoming budget to assist in the conservation easements.

Keep the North Shore Country (KNSC) is not involved in the negotiations between the state and Turtle Bay, but is encouraged that a successful agreement is within reach. Whatever plan Turtle Bay chooses to follow, thorough environmental review remains essential.

KNSC provided comprehensive, specific comments regarding the structural flaws of the draft SEIS and recommended that "If the grave inadequacies of the DSEIS are not corrected before submission as the final SEIS, the SEIS should be rejected by DPP."

Keep the North Shore Country was compelled to file a lawsuit when the flawed final SEIS was accepted by the city DPP. The department should have told Turtle Bay: "Go back and do it right."