01-27-2011, 07:24 AM
I read then entire document and testified in Hilo.
One change that I disagreed with was allowing "Power Generation from Renewable Resources" on conservation land in the Protective Subzone. "The objective of this subzone is to protect valuable natural and cultural resources in designated areas such as restricted watersheds, marine, plant, and wildlife sanctuaries, significant historical, archaeological, geological and volcanological features and sites, and other designated unique areas." One of these latter areas is the NW Hawaiian Islands (except Midway). These are the most important ecologically and pristine of our lands, but the new regulation would allow "Hydroelectric, wind generation, ocean thermal energy conversion, wave, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewable power generation facilities", which includes "generation, conversion, and transmission facilities and access roads".
Now I am a big proponent of alternate and clean energy, but it seems to me that allowing development of these facilities on the most critical of our conservation lands is a totally inappropriate land use. Clearing of an area, including roads and transmission line corridors, will disturb the soil and bring in alien invasive weed seeds. This happened in the Wao Kele O Puna and the 3 mile long access road is now a corridor of strawberry guava and tibouchina, crowding out and killing the ohia and other native species.
Although the new rule mandates that such a project shall "minimize impacts", and requires a permit and management plan, there is no way to make it economically feasible to avoid all such negative impacts. Or maybe not feasible at all. Is it worth it to lose large tracts of our natural heritage on these special lands so that someone can leave all their lights burning in every room? Or to send power to Oahu? "Minimize" is not the same thing as "Totally avoid".
It is interesting that this regulatory addition does not even spell out what size of a facility would be allowed, or what percentage of a parcel could be used. Pin to pin on several hundred acres? Without written guidelines that would not be precluded.
I was not surprised that HELCO testified in favor of this. That sure raises red flags for me.
There are, however, other things in the plan that I am in total agreement with. And I testified accordingly. I suggest that if you care about our aina, you do so too. And submit your written testimony asap. Mahalo.
One change that I disagreed with was allowing "Power Generation from Renewable Resources" on conservation land in the Protective Subzone. "The objective of this subzone is to protect valuable natural and cultural resources in designated areas such as restricted watersheds, marine, plant, and wildlife sanctuaries, significant historical, archaeological, geological and volcanological features and sites, and other designated unique areas." One of these latter areas is the NW Hawaiian Islands (except Midway). These are the most important ecologically and pristine of our lands, but the new regulation would allow "Hydroelectric, wind generation, ocean thermal energy conversion, wave, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewable power generation facilities", which includes "generation, conversion, and transmission facilities and access roads".
Now I am a big proponent of alternate and clean energy, but it seems to me that allowing development of these facilities on the most critical of our conservation lands is a totally inappropriate land use. Clearing of an area, including roads and transmission line corridors, will disturb the soil and bring in alien invasive weed seeds. This happened in the Wao Kele O Puna and the 3 mile long access road is now a corridor of strawberry guava and tibouchina, crowding out and killing the ohia and other native species.
Although the new rule mandates that such a project shall "minimize impacts", and requires a permit and management plan, there is no way to make it economically feasible to avoid all such negative impacts. Or maybe not feasible at all. Is it worth it to lose large tracts of our natural heritage on these special lands so that someone can leave all their lights burning in every room? Or to send power to Oahu? "Minimize" is not the same thing as "Totally avoid".
It is interesting that this regulatory addition does not even spell out what size of a facility would be allowed, or what percentage of a parcel could be used. Pin to pin on several hundred acres? Without written guidelines that would not be precluded.
I was not surprised that HELCO testified in favor of this. That sure raises red flags for me.
There are, however, other things in the plan that I am in total agreement with. And I testified accordingly. I suggest that if you care about our aina, you do so too. And submit your written testimony asap. Mahalo.