Laserfiche WebLink
Figure 1: proximity of development to high value limu (seaweed), marine invertebrate, and <br />y grounds. This is the only site of this type currently on the Kalapana coast <br />due to recent geologic activity. <br />Incompatibility of SMA with Existing PunaCDP <br />1 <br />The current Puna Community Development Planstates: “Important coastal resources— <br />biological, historical, and access trails—are at risk of degradation or loss due to development and <br />erosion. Traditionally, coastal trail alignments moved inland as the shoreline retreated, but <br />contemporary legal practice often leads to the loss of trail segments. Similarly, coastal vegetation <br />naturally tracks inland with shoreline erosion, unless the vegetation line is artificially maintained. <br />Present Special Management Area (SMA) rules and review practices do no adequately take these <br />change factors into account” (pg. 26). <br />The Puna CDP directly asks for “bold planning initiatives to re-shape the pattern of future <br />growth and development in a manner that is more in harmony with the natural setting,” and <br />directly cites the impacts of development onincreasing the spread of invasive, non-native <br />species, the decline of native organisms, fragmentation, alteration of drainage patterns, and <br />collapse of geologic structures (pg.12). Clear goals of the CDP include protection of cultural <br />sites and value, maintenance of the character of older communities, and <br />protection of native forests (pg. 19-20). This development is not in alignment with the character <br />detailed below). <br />1 <br />Puna Community Development Plan. 2011. Ordinance No. 08-116.0 (hawaiicounty.gov) <br /> <br />