01-18-2008, 08:19 AM
Four of the five 'o'opu found in Hawaii are endemic (found only in Hawaii), I think that is the main reason they have Hawaiian derivation Scientific names....
EIS info from I report I did on the Honoli'i EIS:
" Public opposition to the Honoli’i Hydroelectric Power Plant project arose on March 9, 1989 at the Board of Land and Natural Resources public hearing in Hilo [the final public hearing]. Community members at this meeting were concerned that Mauna Kea Power had not performed “Instream Flow Incremental Method” (IFIM) modeling of the stream flow to determine the conservation flow rate of ten cubic feet per second. Mauna Kea had requested the need for the modeling in the scooping phase of the Environmental Impact Statement. After this meeting, the Land Board granted three separate petitions for contested case hearings on July 13, 1989. After the contested case hearing, Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council asked the Hawaii County Council for help because “credible studies have not validated the contention that there will be no adverse impacts on the environment and surfing.”
In response to the concerns voiced at these hearings, the County of Hawai’i issued the “Impact of Mauna Kea Power Company’s Proposed Hydroelectric Power Plant on Honoli’i Beach Park” on Nov. 24, 1989. This report addressed the community concerns on the potential impacts to the wildlife and change in the surfing beach at Honoli’i Beach Park. The report showed that the county had high interest in the project. There were concerns that the modeling techniques used in the IFIM models would be lengthy, expensive and would not give results that were based on stream conditions on Hawai’i Island. The County of Hawai’i recommended a stream flow study should be done by the Look Laboratory of Oceanographic Engineering, a research branch of the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, to calculate the effects of the requested conservation flow rate of ten cubic feet per second.
The Board of Land and Natural Resources denied the [DLNR] applicant request on December 1, 1989. On October 7, 1991, the Circuit Court of Hawaii affirmed the Board of Land and Natural Resources decision to deny the applicant project. On May 24, 1994, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court decision that affirmed the Board of Land and Natural Resources decision to deny the applicant project."
EIS info from I report I did on the Honoli'i EIS:
" Public opposition to the Honoli’i Hydroelectric Power Plant project arose on March 9, 1989 at the Board of Land and Natural Resources public hearing in Hilo [the final public hearing]. Community members at this meeting were concerned that Mauna Kea Power had not performed “Instream Flow Incremental Method” (IFIM) modeling of the stream flow to determine the conservation flow rate of ten cubic feet per second. Mauna Kea had requested the need for the modeling in the scooping phase of the Environmental Impact Statement. After this meeting, the Land Board granted three separate petitions for contested case hearings on July 13, 1989. After the contested case hearing, Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council asked the Hawaii County Council for help because “credible studies have not validated the contention that there will be no adverse impacts on the environment and surfing.”
In response to the concerns voiced at these hearings, the County of Hawai’i issued the “Impact of Mauna Kea Power Company’s Proposed Hydroelectric Power Plant on Honoli’i Beach Park” on Nov. 24, 1989. This report addressed the community concerns on the potential impacts to the wildlife and change in the surfing beach at Honoli’i Beach Park. The report showed that the county had high interest in the project. There were concerns that the modeling techniques used in the IFIM models would be lengthy, expensive and would not give results that were based on stream conditions on Hawai’i Island. The County of Hawai’i recommended a stream flow study should be done by the Look Laboratory of Oceanographic Engineering, a research branch of the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, to calculate the effects of the requested conservation flow rate of ten cubic feet per second.
The Board of Land and Natural Resources denied the [DLNR] applicant request on December 1, 1989. On October 7, 1991, the Circuit Court of Hawaii affirmed the Board of Land and Natural Resources decision to deny the applicant project. On May 24, 1994, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court decision that affirmed the Board of Land and Natural Resources decision to deny the applicant project."