Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
It is sad that the permits and studies
would probably cost more than the actual project.
One factor that may or may not streamline a shoreline project such as this is that it lies within a declared "disaster area". I know this designation allows the county workers more control at the nearby Lava Ocean Entry.
Maybe it would allow the county to circumnavigate shoreline special management regulations (which are pretty much useless since the lava has drastically altered the shoreline anyway).
What's your mana'o, Bob?
Other than that, all thats needed are a D-9, rock crusher and conveyer belt like you can find at any Puna rock quarry. Doesn't one of the cinder companies owe the county a million and a half dollars? (hint hint)
punatoons
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
Agreed greg, however we may have an out. Prior to doing an EIS, a NEPA study is usually done. NEPA studies are quick and dirty
One does a NEPA to justify or determine if an EIS is necessary If there is no established sensitive biological infrastructure on the lava
There just may be an easy green light for approvals
here is an example done for a road -- less than 10 pages
http://www.in.gov/indot/div/projects/us3...atives.pdf
I have one in progress for a well addition on federal land... slow but doable
Posts: 6,214
Threads: 354
Joined: Feb 2006
Bullwinkle, one wrinkle, if there is a NEPA trigger (and there would be on this proposal):
This is a CZM area, so the impacts are not just coastal, but also any in-water impacts would also have to be addressed.
The NEPA EA would also have to disclose all of the known cultural artifacts within the area (one of the reasons why the state has not done much with the access to & around Point Kumukahi). If there are known cultural artifacts, even if covered, the impacts of doing anything above & around them must be looked at, so the NEPA EA would most likely blow up into an EI$ really quick.
Posts: 968
Threads: 74
Joined: Aug 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Carey
If there are known cultural artifacts, even if covered...
Covered? As in under rock? Covered up by a lava flow? That would be some pretty fancy foot work methinks.. to define an area as something more than a barren lava field if that same field covered up something in the past. That would make defining use of places like Kalapana a wild and scary ride.. a very long one too I assume. There are all sorts of 'artifacts' under that flow that mean zip now, it's just rock anymore. But what? Should it be that we cordon off some area and put up a sign.. here lies, under a bunch of rock, what once was...? And, if this is the case, can you name an example of this being done already?
Posts: 4,889
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
I have Hawaiian friends who claim to have ancestors who are buried in that area.I don't think they would be really happy to have a D-9 in the area.
Also check pages 3 and 4 of this pdf file.
http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/finance/ponc/...inutes.pdf
There is already a non profit working on a park,but if there was no money available in 2007 there certainly is no money in 2009.
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
The area I'm referring to, before 1992, was a half mile offshore and therefore had no shoreline. I doubt if anything is buried there now, but if there is, it was buried since 1992 without the proper studies, permits or government approval.
punatoons
Posts: 4,889
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
I thought the post was about Kamukahi and the lighthouse area.
It was buried in 1960 but unless you drop the D-9 out of an airplane you will still have to cross sensitive areas.
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
The original post was about the Kapoho area. I suggested that Kaimu makai would be a suitable location because it is virgin lava.
From a surf standpoint, I also believe the steady current at Kaimu make that location more suitable. Kumakahi, being the easternmost point on the island is the location of strong converging currents that come together like a large washing machine. I think the surf would be less predictible here; but that's just my intuition.
punatoons
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Bullwinkle
Agreed greg, however we may have an out. Prior to doing an EIS, a NEPA study is usually done. NEPA studies are quick and dirty
One does a NEPA to justify or determine if an EIS is necessary If there is no established sensitive biological infrastructure on the lava
There just may be an easy green light for approvals
42USC-4321 pertains to federal funded projects and is
in addition to local regulations. NEPA does not replace all the other regulations and does not over-ride Hawaii State and County regulations. Anything within a CMZ has to adhere to Hawaii's regulations as well. Based on the HSF ruling, FONSI is just about impossible in a CMZ and can now be challenged by anyone.
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
Sometimes it is quicker to do the deed and ask forgiveness afterward - grin
lot of ifs on the topic these last few posts, mine as follows
if enough folks wanted it, it would fly in my opinion, not easy but doable. The requirement being tenacity even with all of the hoops, I still believe common sense prevails in the end, just an incurable optimist I guess.
