COM 1051.003 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

proceeding. 5. At the LUC hearings Ka Lahui Hawai'i argued and introduced into evidence, testimonies of various witnesses and supporting documentation that Applicant: a. failed to adequately identify and inventory all cultural resources located within the project area; and b. failed to conduct any type of ethnographic study to determine what cultural activities exist and to what extent these activities are traditionally practiced within the project area which the proposed development may impact upon. 6. Intervenor witnesses and cultural experts during the LUC hearings proved that Applicant's Final EIS did not satisfy Applicant's duty and obligation to adequately identify all cultural/historical resources and thus could not possibly address impacts its proposed development would have upon yet unidentified cultural and historical resources. The FEIS merely listed items which were archaeological in nature. 7. Applicant's IRMP on file with the Commission is the result of the above showing and although very comprehensive and well prepared, fails to demonstrate how it determined that the development does not adversely affect cultural resources located outside as well as within the established subzones. 8. Mitigation measures and treatment of cultural resouces outlined in the IRMP suggest that impacts of development upon resources located within the established subzones as well as outside the subzones have already been determined and are consistent with guidelines set forth in Section 205A-26, HRS when in actuality these impacts have not been determined 9. As an intervenor in this proceeding it would not be appropriate to suggest methods or criteria by which potential impacts upon cultural resources can be measured when in fact there are laws already in place and judicial rulings which mandate government agencies to create such mechanism by which these impacts can be measured. 10. Until such mechanisms are in place, to go forward on a case-by-case basis will further complicate and create an obstruction in processing future Applications before governmental agencies, to the detriment of the native Hawaiian community, the general public, landowners and developers. 11. The objectives and policies as set forth in Section 205A-2(c)(8) require that a public advisory body to identify coastal management problems and to provide policy advice and assistance to the coastal zone management program be maintained. Until this policy and objective is met, we recommend that no action be taken on Ka'upulehu Developments Application.