|
time allows for changes in the perceptions of significance, allows for changes in the community
<br /> on what the community values, and so those changes have to be considered when re-evaluating a
<br /> project. So, if something's approved in 1980, and then is coming back before you again 20 years
<br /> later, you have to take a look and think how has thing's changed, how has the community
<br /> changed since then, how has everything around it changed since then, how has our perceptions of
<br /> the significance of whatever it is changed since the project was originally approved. And so, you
<br /> have to consider that when re-evaluating a project. The further language is from the Hawaii
<br /> Administrative Rules, Chapter 13-200 which basically creates the guidelines for implementing
<br /> environmental impact statements and indicating when a supplemental environmental impact
<br /> statement is needed. So, what we have here is that the, an EIS is accepted with respect to a
<br /> particular action is usually qualified by the size, scope, location, intensity, use, and timing of the
<br /> actions, among other things. So, that timing refers to when the project is proposed to be
<br /> completed. So, if a project is proposed to be completed in 1980, but it's not done, then is later on
<br /> proposed in 2020, the timing of that project has changed, so therefore the impacts of that project
<br /> will change. And in the case such as environmental impact rules, a supplemental environmental
<br /> statement is required in order to update the - - - of the project on the new timing. So, basically
<br /> the purpose being where if we're in a situation where we're seeing extension, after extension,
<br /> after extension, after extension, and the area has substantially changed, the beliefs about what
<br /> should be done in the area has substantially changed, and the commission should review a
<br /> request for extension based on the changes in the community now, and what's happening
<br /> currently instead of just focusing on the merits for why it was approved back in--. And,just,just
<br /> to add, I -- is there any more that you want to go on before I keep, keep talking?
<br /> DARROW: I do have another slide
<br /> VITOUSEK: Go ahead.
<br /> DARROW: --but after you're done.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Go ahead, go ahead.
<br /> DARROW: So, based on the, the previous slides, and, and the information that Commissioner
<br /> Vitousek has provided, we - - -
<br /> CARR
<br /> - -CARR SMITH: Jeff, you're muted.
<br /> DARROW: Sorry about that.
<br /> CARR SMITH: No problem.
<br /> DARROW: And my screen went blank, so I don't know what—is your screen, is your screen
<br /> black? Yeah?
<br /> CARR SMITH: Yes, it is.
<br /> DARROW: Okay.
<br /> 3
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|