Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Greg
My points are; Do we have any recourse when regulation imposed to protect us inadvertantly restricts us? Can this process be streamlined when there are obviously so few impacts to the location other than recreational and economic stimulation?
Greg, I do understand your issue.
First the regulations are not in place to just deal with impacts, they are there to ensure a uniform method of outlining and determining if impacts are few and insignificant. You say they are few, but how did you make that determination? The regulations make sure that impacts are weighted uniformly across all areas and that if they are few and not significant, that the project can proceed without too many delays or hassles.
Lets say someone wants to improve a footpath to the ocean. Currently it’s of little use (maybe 6 people a day) the area is unused due to terrain. You want to grade a path to that shoreline. Forgetting for the moment anything related to economic, cultural, historical or other issues outside the path and use, one would think the impact is small. However, if that path improvement means an increase from 6 people to 60 each day, you have an impact related to trash and sanitation. You also have a potential 60 people in the water. So you will need to deal with how the increase of people to an area is going to impact the environment. The more you introduce people and their baggage, the more you have to deal with impact issues.
If this was not in place, what would prevent a developer from claiming their 500 room ocean front resort will have no impact on the shoreline because only 2 lbs of trash will be generated per year and only 4 people will venture off the resort to the ocean? The criteria you must follow is the same they must follow and it would expose their impact as being a lot more than a half a bag of trash a year. For you it may reveal the need for a trashcan to mitigate the impact, and it would reveal the need for the resort to have a dedicated cleanup crew to mitigate their impact.
These regs become a burden simply because the criteria really requires someone to think through each aspect of a project and know what are impacts that need to be addresses. Often times, individuals or groups don’t have this expertise so hiring someone who knows the process cost money. Since you are also dealing with multiple agencies, you have to know what each one requires and cover their area in any impact review.
Posts: 1,273
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2007
More strategically the offshore shelf is near, and 300 feet offshore it can be a 1000 feet deep. That will take a lot of cat work to fill up. If it made financial sense it would already be done. The rest of the regs could be, and routinely are, bought off. Chump change, compared to the million cubic yards of fill.
Posts: 1,595
Threads: 111
Joined: May 2007
Mahalo for your input.
The kalapana lava plain is pretty new, but there's been people there for generations. It's really a unique situation;
A population of hundreds, lava inundation, population diminishes and relocates........Recreational development, population and impact increases again.
I don't really know if it would increase to Kalapana's previous level or not, but it's a valid point.
The shelf is a valid concern also. I think any surfbreak design would have to be done tight. Maybe even shape the shoreline back instead of filling it out. I know the little beach is being surfed and bodyboarded now, but it's kind of dangerous.
A protected lagoon would be easy.
punatoons
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
I think we have just as good a chance of this coming to fruition as Madame Pele leaving us with a Killer Surf break at the ocean entry when she's done there.
Slim to none
I'm not a pesimist just a realist.
I'm still Praying though...That a big bench will break off and make a new spot with a black sand beach.
One can only hope...
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/articl...dy+to+roll
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/2009082...tures.html
32 acre coastal 4wd park..... A good example what can be done
"The state received a $30,000 federal grant for the project. Cottrell worked on the environmental assessment and the special management area use permit, but he and his staff faced complicated permit processes, which prompted him to hire consultants.
About $13,500 was spent to obtain a grubbing and grading permit and a permit from the state Department of Health. The remaining funds will go toward fuel for heavy equipment."
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
I know we have many similar regulations here in Washington State regarding environmental impact etc, especially since Salmon were addressed and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) applied. It has effected and ended many projects located near streams and rivers. With all that said, there is standing regulation that immunizes the counties and cities from these regulations regarding roadway construction and public projects.
Perhaps Hawaii has similar regulations that abridge such environmental regulations with regard to State, County and City agencies?
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
One problem with doing anything in Kalapana is that it's so subject to new inundation, which would undo all the work and expense. The Country can't redo the through road because of lava flows. Granted this is different because a road can be damaged by any flow reaching the sea, whereas Kalapana is safe unless the flow shifts to the east. However, given the recent history, I doubt anyone in government would bank on Kalapana's immunity.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
There are 3 other regions north of the current flows of Kalapana that have had flows since 1840.
The furthest north occurring in 1840 was through the Nanawale Forest Reserve and near Honolulu landing. The village (Honolulu landing just outside and North the Nanawale reserve) was abandon in 1924 during the quakes and ground collapse along the shore including a black sands beach at Honolulu Landing. There remains a portion of the black sands beach that was once there and as these regions are concerned, such a park could be built while preserving remnants of the village for historical interests if any are on public owned lands. If such areas are not preserved via park efforts they will be swallowed and destroyed by vegetation as is currently happening. The black sands beach at Honolulu Landing was created by the cinder cones that emerged during the 1840’s eruption and the cinder cones are now known as “Sand Hills” and are located in the Nanawale forest reserve. The hills are a natural nearby source of black sands for such a project. At this time “Sand Hills” and the surrounding area merely serve as a place for folks to tear up with quads and other off-road machines. The area also serves as an illegal dump site by those who would do so. It will take a “presence” to stop such activity and a new beach park would provide that presence while serving the public with an awesome beach park instead of a largely abused area.
South East of the 1840’s flows we’ve the 1960’s flows below the light house on the most easterly point of the island, Point Kumukahi with a great deal of shoreline.
South West of the 1960’s flows we’ve the 1955 flows around Kahena of which are perhaps no use regarding such an endeavor.
Considering all those areas and contemplating Kalapanas current situation. The Nanawale Forest Reserve flows of the 1840’s complete with sand onsite might be the better of all publically owned available areas and it’s one not yet cited in this topic.
Any thoughts regarding the Nanawale Forest Reserve flows of 1840 and the "Sand Hills" cynder cone region? The area is largely abused at this time and also used as an area to abandon or hide crime evidence. In essence we would be removing an illegal dump and providing presence within an area that is currently abused. In essence... killing two birds with one stone.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
For those not familiar with the area of Sand Hills in the Nanawale Forest Reserve, if using Google Earth, the coordinates are 19deg 33’ 11.84N by 154deg 52’ 24.86W. There were 2 automobiles and a number of large automotive components at the bottom of the hills near and in the ocean about 2 years ago that have been since either covered by the sliding sand down the cones or pulled out to sea by the surf. The trees in the area are Not Native and are Casuarina Trees that grew atop the 1840’s flows thus the vegetation color does not match the surrounding jungle fauna in satellite images. These are the same trees found at Mackenzie State park.
The natural hydraulic focal forces in this area should create much stronger surf potential with regard to an additional surfing park. Perhaps we could even be creating waves far greater than any other location within the Islands. If you back out on the region on Google Earth you’ll see the ocean bed in this area and the marine focal type terrain that is unique to this area alone and precisely why tsunamis are so devastating in this region. This is perhaps the best of all available sites on all the Islands combined in far more ways than one.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
I know we have many similar regulations here in Washington State regarding environmental impact etc, especially since Salmon were addressed and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) applied. It has effected and ended many projects located near streams and rivers. With all that said, there is standing regulation that immunizes the counties and cities from these regulations regarding roadway construction and public projects.
Perhaps Hawaii has similar regulations that abridge such environmental regulations with regard to State, County and City agencies?
The County and State via legislation can exempt itself from local regulations. But most government agencies are skeptical about doing this as it lends ammunition to developers. Developers can make a legitimate case that if environmental and EIS laws are necessary to protect, why isn't government following it as well. It's very easy for us to set the stage that the regs are really about making money, and not the environment, because government doesn’t see them as important enough to follow. As for Hawaii, the HSF ruling kind of showed how precise these exemptions need to be and how exemptions can be overruled in favor of the stricter regulations once subject to legal scrutiny. The complication of environmental review is directly related to the impact of the project. The more impact the project has, the more details and mitigation that needs to be dealt with.
|
