08-03-2015, 06:04 PM
Some very glaring problems within the EIS reports. For starters why hasn't a federal environmental impact statement been provided? Federal funding of the TMT project had been admitted or confirmed to the tune of $8-13,000,000 dollars by the end of 2008. With expressed interests of continuing funding from (NSF) throughout the construction and OPERATION phase's of the TMT's project.
Because of the 8 criteria, the cultural concerns, and the over development already done to the summit of Maunakea. Why was Chile not looked at more seriously knowing it was an adequate location for the project outside of the United States?
Also it almost appears as if the University is the ultimate decider to the adaquacy of its own EIS report, the acting Governor instead of the DLNR? ( Now That's a new way to avoid Hawaii's environmental rules).
Also many businesses chosen or who were fortunate enough to read, comment, or share input about the TMT project still smells very fishy to ME. Why have a couple pages obviously written a bit bias from the Imiloa center, why would they care about the cultural or environmental impacts, when they are soliciting for possible future funding to stay operational, from the TMT at the end of their Pro-TMT letter?
As for the Wekiu bug that keeps getting kicked around or picked off the summit, what is truly being done for them by the existing 21 observatories? The numbers of Wekiu bugs atop the summit in the spring of 1982 may never be reached again, yet some claim the Wekiu are thriving when found individually now, or found in locations once thought to be undesirable habitats for the Wekiu bug.
Once the TMT construction begins the dust caused from the increased traffic through dirt sections of the rodway may become troublesome, Especially when adding the million more visitors dust expected once the TMT is complete. Concerned that when water is scarce atop Maunakea, some may revisit The soil binding ideas once being considered by the TMT. (Durasoil) is a death trap for the remaining Wekiu bugs that are living atop Maunakea.
Far To Many other concerns to address them all here now, don't want to be the Jack that dominates the rap for to long anyway.
Because of the 8 criteria, the cultural concerns, and the over development already done to the summit of Maunakea. Why was Chile not looked at more seriously knowing it was an adequate location for the project outside of the United States?
Also it almost appears as if the University is the ultimate decider to the adaquacy of its own EIS report, the acting Governor instead of the DLNR? ( Now That's a new way to avoid Hawaii's environmental rules).
Also many businesses chosen or who were fortunate enough to read, comment, or share input about the TMT project still smells very fishy to ME. Why have a couple pages obviously written a bit bias from the Imiloa center, why would they care about the cultural or environmental impacts, when they are soliciting for possible future funding to stay operational, from the TMT at the end of their Pro-TMT letter?
As for the Wekiu bug that keeps getting kicked around or picked off the summit, what is truly being done for them by the existing 21 observatories? The numbers of Wekiu bugs atop the summit in the spring of 1982 may never be reached again, yet some claim the Wekiu are thriving when found individually now, or found in locations once thought to be undesirable habitats for the Wekiu bug.
Once the TMT construction begins the dust caused from the increased traffic through dirt sections of the rodway may become troublesome, Especially when adding the million more visitors dust expected once the TMT is complete. Concerned that when water is scarce atop Maunakea, some may revisit The soil binding ideas once being considered by the TMT. (Durasoil) is a death trap for the remaining Wekiu bugs that are living atop Maunakea.
Far To Many other concerns to address them all here now, don't want to be the Jack that dominates the rap for to long anyway.