Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-06 PL-SMA-2023-000046 Megan Lamson Testimony From: Megan Lamson To: WPCtestimony; Kern.Zendo Cc: Roth.Mitch D;Galimba. Michelle M.; Hannah Bernard;Jodie Rosam; Nohealani Ka"awa; Bill Gilmartin; Stacey Breining Subject: Re: HWF testimony with concerns/comments re 3/7/24 WPC Agenda Item #3(PL-SMA-2023-00046) Date: Wednesday,March 6,2024 12:16:33 PM Attachments: COH SMAA Punaluu Concerns HWF 202403051.Ddf M. Lamson comments to COH re Punalu'u EIS(2006).Ddf Aloha kakou, Sincere apologies,but can you please use this version for the official records (sans typo!)? Plus we are also including the supplementary documentation from 2oo6 that was mentioned in our letter. Mahalo! m On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:57 AM Megan Lamson<meg.HWF(j4gma� il.com>wrote: Aloha Planning Director Kern&members of the Windward Planning Commission, Please see attached for our testimony for tomorrow's meeting, re: March 7, 2024 - Windward Planning Commission Agenda Item #3: Special Management Area Use Permit Application and Landowner: Black Sand Beach, LLC (PL-SMA-2023- 000046); regarding lands in the Ahupua`a of Ninole, Wailau, and Punalu`u; Ka`u Moku, Hawaii. Let us know if you need any additional information or have any questions. Mahalo for your time and consideration. Best, Megan <11))))« <*))))« <11))))« »(((*> <"))))<< Megan R.Lamson Leatherman,M.S. HAWAVI WILDLIFE FUND Hawaii Program Director PO Box 18o1,Kealakekua HI 9675o meg.HWF(&gmail.com,/megan(a)wildhawaii.org htt12://www.wildhawaii.oW debris hotline 8o8/769-7629 meg cell 8o8/217-5777 C Join our HWF e-Newsletter list to stay informed: Subscribe here Stranded,sick or injured marine animals or false killer whale sightings? Call the statewide marine wildlife hotline:(888) 256-9840 Marine debris?Report Marine Debiis to DLNR or call the statewide MD hotline:(833)4DA-NETS(833-432-6387) Hawksbill sea turtle sightings? Visit the HIhawksbills.ore Oceanic manta sightings? Visit Manta Pacific's Manta ID Proiect Coral reef health issue?Report observations to Eves of the Reef Network Coconut rhinoceros beetle or grub?Report at the Pest Hotline:(808)643-PEST(7378) vr� `p Hawaii WiWife Fund ro 5ox &ro Sox y900 y,raia HI ss77s Celekratir vg 2.8 years of Protecting,hawai'Ps native wildlife through research,education and conservation. County of Hawaii (COH) Planning Department and members of the Windward Planning Commission Attn: Zendo Kern, Planning Director 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 e: WPCtestimony@hawaiicounty.gov zendo.kern@hawaiicounty.gov cc: COH Mayor Mitch Roth (mitchd.roth@hawaiicounty.gov) COH Councilmember Michelle Galimba (michelle.galimba@hawaiicounty.gov) 5 March 2024 Re: March 7, 2024 Windward Planning Commission Agenda Item #3: Special Management Area Use Permit Application and Landowner: Black Sand Beach, LLC (PL-SMA-2023-000046); regarding lands in the Ahupua'a of Ninole, Wailau, and Punalu'u; Ka'u Moku, Hawai'i. Aloha Mr. Kern and members of the Windward Planning Commission, As an active non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of HawaiTs wildlife for the past 28 years, including 20 years in Ka'u, Hawaii Wildlife Fund (HWF) would like to express our concerns regarding the SMA application submitted by Black Sand Beach, LLC: "To allow for the development of a residential and commercial community consisting of approximately 225 residential and short stay units, village and wellness center, retail uses, rehabilitation and use of golf courses, and dedication of a portion of coastline as a conservation area on an approximately 147 acres portion of a larger 434-acre project site within the Special Management Area." (TMKs: (3) 9-5-019: 011, 015, 024, 026, 030, 031, 033, 035; 9-6-001: 001-003, 006, 011-013; 9-6-002: 008, 037, 038, 041, and 053.) We respect that the Applicant landowner has invested the time to connect with those who have kuleana and special connections to the area. However, we emphasize that in order to proceed with WWW wildAaw411 Ow this SMA request, a new current shoreline and environmental surveys should be conducted before concluding that there will indeed be no adverse impacts to our native wildlife and habitats. We disagree with the Planning Department's recommendation to proceed with this SMA application, saying there will be no substantive environmental and ecological effects, and that no environmental assessment or impact statement is needed. We have already noted (in our 2021 letter about an SMA minor application on this same propoerty) that the past environmental impact statements (from 1998 and 2006 respectively) are both outdated and incomplete. We also appreciate that the Applicant landowner has paid for an updated archeological and flora survey, but the full impacts from this cumulative proposed development will negatively effect coastal and marine ecosystems, and these items have not yet been addressed. Hawai'i Wildlife Fund shares our four key concerns about this proposal: First, Policy 28 in the Ka'u Community Development Plan states that, "On lots that are of least partially within the Special Management Area in the Ko'u CDP Planning Area, establish shoreline setbacks of the earliest stages of the land use planning and development process of o minimum of 1,320 feet(1/4-mile) ...". The proposed location of the 8,000 sq ft, 2.5 story fish market, retail space, and restaurant is located around 200 feet from the coastline, in an area with no existing infrastructure, and as such is not in alignment with this important Ka'u CDP Policy. Second, the SMA application references documents (including a 1988 FEIS and a 2006 Draft EIS) which are not only outdated, but were (in the case of the 2006 DEIS) a major source of conflict in the community, and lacks in sound scientific data collection methodology. See attached for the comment letter drafted to the COH Planning Department from 18 years ago by our current President and Hawaii Program Director. In it, Megan highlights the inadequacies of the 2006 DEIS for then proposed "Sea Mountain" development like them performing a "qualitative survey' of marine resources at Punalu'u because weather and conditions did not allow for researchers to enter the ocean. In summary, both then and now, the shoreline at Punalu'u remains an ecologically sensitive area, home to basking threatened honu (green turtles), nesting endangered honu'ea (hawksbill turtles), resting and hauled out endangered ilioholoikauaua (Hawaiian monk seals), foraging and roosting habitat for 'ope'ape'a (Hawaiian hoary bats) in addition to numerous coastal ponds, tidepools, and nearshore coral reefs with their countless native inhabitants. Other endangered invertebrates that are known from this region include protected species like nalo meli maoli (yellow- faced bees), pulelehua (Blackburn's sphinx moth), pinao (Orange-black damselfly), plus one of the few remaining populations of endangered loulu palms (Pritchordio moideniono). Third, the proposed location of the Welness Center is on lowland dry shrubland, which in itself is a threatened ecosystem type. Past surveys had recognized alahe'e and 'a'ali'i plants in this 9-acre section of the property. We mahalo the Applicant landowner for updating the flora surveys for the area since their 2021 application, and hope that any developments in this "Area 4" that are approved fall outside this ecosystem type or can be mitigated for. We also recommend that any planned landscaping conducted in the entire development include only plants that are both native (endemic, indigenous) to Hawai'i or are canoe plants like niu, noni, 'auhuhu, and are also plants that are able to live in more arid, dry climates so that extra water is not expelled for irrigation. www.wildAaw411 Arp Last but not least, the application requests that the certified shoreline survey to support this application be waived since no new improvements or uses are contemplated anywhere near the shoreline. However, as mentioned above in our first point, we would argue otherwise and encourage the County to require an updated shoreline survey. Punalu'u has a history of proposed and successful (and unsuccessful) developments in the area, and while we do appreciate the Applicant sticking to the existing infrastructural footprints in the area (more or less, except for the fish market, retail space, and restaurant), it does not discount the potential for impacts upon construction commencement and into the future with the proposed activities and uses. Done properly, rehabilitation of the abandoned buildings and recreation areas could indeed be a benefit to the community and ecosystems (in the case of the old dilapitated restaurant site behind Kawaihuokauila), though it will undoubtedly attract more visitors to an area already struggling with overuse from excessive tourism. However, the potential cumulative impacts to native wildlife and coastal ecosystems from this SMA application and proposed development should not be disregarded. We humbly ask that the Windward Planning Commision, County and State require adequate and current surveys to be conducted prior to granting a SMA permit approval, and to only move forward in good consciousness that local native wildlife and Ka'u community members will not be negatively impacted. Mahalo for your time and consideration. Me ka mahalo pumehana, f�� (�I*w Megan R. Lamson, M.S. Hannah J. Bernard Hawai'i Wildlife Fund—Kealakekua, Hawai'i Hawaii Wildlife Fund—Paia, Maui President& Hawai'i Program Director Co-founder& Executive Director Jodie R. Rosam, M.S. Nohealani U. Ka'awa Hawai'i Wildlife Fund - Na'alehu, Hawai'i Hawaii Wildlife Fund - Na'alehu, Hawai'i Plant Program Manager Ka'u Resources Specialist William "Bill" G. Gilmartin Stacey I. Breining Hawaii Wildlife Fund - Kealakekua, Hawai'i Hawaii Wildlife Fund - Hilo, Hawaii Co-founder& Director of Research, Emeritus Environmental Educator www.wildAaw411 Ow J;0100, P.O.Box 6321 Ocean View,HI 96737 Lamson@hawaii.edu Hawaii County Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Hilo,HI 96720 Re: Sea Mountain at Punalu`u(DEIS) 21 November 2006 Dear Mr. Chris Yuen: It is with great frustration that I am writing this letter to you today, and I only hope that you will take the time to listen. I am currently a graduate student at the University of Hawaii, Hilo studying tropical conservation biology and environmental science, with an undergraduate degree in marine biology. I am also a resident of Ka`u, and my thesis project is focused on juvenile fish ecology in the nearby Honu`apo Bay. My background is significant because it allows you to weigh the importance of this critique given my personal experience and involvement in the area. i The Ka`u District presents an amazing example of a relatively pristine coastline, especially in comparison to the rest of the Hawaii County, let alone State. I understand that a certain degree of development is inevitable, yet I plead you reconsider this exaggerated attempt of turning our beautiful land into a business venture. Multiple gaps exist in the Sea Mountain at Punalu`u DEIS prepared by Group 70 International, Inc. Therefore, I am requesting that you reject it outright, and instead address the need for a contested hearing on the issue. Below is a list of my main concerns for the inadequacy of the DEIS: -- My main argument lies in the paucity of data collection on marine biota in the marine and pond environments analysis conducted by Marine Research Consultants, Inc. (Appendix J). After spending dozens of afternoons surveying the fishes of nearby Honu`apo Bay, I can wholeheartedly say that no one can fully analyze the marine resources of an area using one single day's worth of research on species abundance. The results drawn from three days of fieldwork: two days in December where researchers"qualitatively" assessed the offshore resources from shore, and one day in the water in April do not qualify as good science. Fish and turtles are not like plants in that they move around and cannot always be found at the same location. This study, and its conclusions are bogus and do not reveal much about the Punalu`u's marine resources. In fact, the cultural analysis provided by Maria E. Ka`imipono Orr(Appendix F) of fish presence in the bay is more thorough than that of the professionals. Orr lists 11 species of fish that locals advised her were important food fishes found at Punalu`u,whereas the marine biologist's technical a report includes the fish"abundance"data for only six species of fish (Appendix J). This is ridiculous. --Also frustrating was the 71h point in Appendix J where they posited that long term studies of turtles indicate that their numbers are increasing while the growth rate has slowed. From this, they propose that any"slight" enhancement in water nutrients from golf-course(development, sewage ... etc.) runoff may in fact help the turtles by increasing the amount of limu available for them to eat. Two things, first of all,how dare they turn eutrophication (nutrient loading) into a good thing. From the Caribbean to Kaneohe Bay, Oahu (Lapointe 1997, McCook 1999), we are seeing more and more examples of"coral-algal phase shifts"; a process induced by the combination of nutrient overloading, overfishing, as well as other natural disturbances (Littler & Littler 1984, Grigg&Dollar 1990, Lapointe 1997, Hughes & Connell 1999). This is not something that should be treaded so lightly, especially from such a highly experienced researcher in this field. Secondly, the authors failed to mention that the literature they were drawing this from(Balazs & Chaloupka 2004) was talking strictly about the threatened green turtle(or honu), Chelonia mydas. The authors of that paper,nor the lacking marine and pond environments analysis (Appendix J), are not concerned with the highly endangered Hawksbill turtle (or honu`ea),Eretmochelys imbricata. This too is faulty research, as E. imbricata can be found using both Punalu`u and Ninole Cove as a nesting beach Also, I feel that it is crucial to note that the island's most important site for Hawksbill nestings is a mere three miles southeast along the coastline at Kamehame. It was presumptuous of the authors to have left this out of the DEIS and essentially assume that a thousand additional beachgoers will not effect the behavior of this endangered species. -- There are multiple contradictions within different parts of the DEIS. One example is the conflicting ideas from practiced scientists regarding the presence of anchialine ponds. Dr. Pat Hart's biological analysis (Appendix C) states that the coastal area contains numerous freshwater and anchialine ponds, whereas the analysis on marine and pond environments (Appendix J)determines that the ponds lack both physical and biological attributes of anchialine status. The Marine Research Consultants, Inc. conveniently fail to mention what these so called"attributes"might be. In addition, in defense of development against the Endangered Species Act, the DEIS states that no "threatened or endangered plant species were detected" (see 6-2). On the contrary, Dr. Hart's biological analysis(Appendix C) clearly states (and even graphs)the presence of the federally listed endangered Loulu palm,Pritchardia affinis, within the Coastal Zone A. Regardless if the Loulu palms were planted by humans or grew there naturally, they are federally protected and need not be ignored. -- In Appendix L, Group 70 International, Inc. attempts to address the idea of beach carrying capacity. This report is vague, and its statistics are highly insignificant. How can you accurately portray the social opinion on appropriate carrying capacity by surveying only 5 individuals? This is yet another classic example of bad science. -- From my readings, I was under the impression that a thorough Social Impact Assessment(SIA)was part of the environmental impact assessment process. As laid out by Van Willigen(1986), community knowledge of the project is a critical factor in addressing the social component of the proposed impact. If this is the case, why was no official public hearing or meeting conducted after the initial release of the DEIS? This in and of itself reflects a certain amount of hesitance from the developers to mediate any of the so-called "unresolved issues" with the community. In addition, the population densities listed did not include the surrounding towns of Waiohinu or Ocean View. Kids from these areas make up a large percentage of the student body population ofNa`alehu Elementary and Ka`u High in Pahala. In turn,their families often frequent the only accessible 2WD beach Punalu`u provides. Group 70's failure to include these groups in their analysis means that the entire community base was not represented. -- This leads directly into the very issue that was briefly touched upon in the DEIS (see 4-53). If the majority of Hawaii residents"feel that the island is ran for tourists at the expense of local people" (2005 Survey of Hawaii Resident Sentiments on Tourism by Hawaii Tourism Authority) -- then what is the introduction of two tourist resorts going to bring back to our community? What have the developers agreed to donate directly to the local school system (and not to individual community groups such as Ka`u Kakou, or through the introduction of additional construction and hotel jobs) if their money-making venture passes? -- Lastly, no preferred alternative is provided. Group 70 seems to issue a biased version of every other alternative than the current plan as it stands, and has obviously not analyzed the impacts of this development as an unbiased 3'd party representative. To reiterate, the DEIS presented for the Sea Mountain development at Punalu`u is inadequate and does injustice to the needs of the surrounding community and the myriads of natural and cultural resources that will be compromised if it is accepted as-is. As the person responsible for making the heavily contested decision of accepting or rejecting the DEIS, please reason that a more thorough analysis will shed additional light on the devastation of Punalu`u that this project will bring. Perhaps this may even inspire the developers to reconsider the massive scale and inappropriateness of their current proposal. Mahalo for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Meg R. Lamson CC: Sea Mountain Five, Office of Environmental Quality Control, Group 70 International, Inc., Ka'u Preservation, Ka`Ohana 0 Honu`apo i References Balazs,G.H.,and M.Chaloupka.2004.Thirty-year recovery trend in the once depleted Hawaiian green sea turtle stock.Biological conservation 117:491 —498. Grigg,R.W.,and S.J.Dollar. 1990.Natural and anthropogenic disturbance on coral reefs.Pages 439—452 in Z.Dubinsky[ed.],Coral Reefs.Elsevier Science Publishers,Amsterdam,the Netherlands. Hughes,T.P.,and J.H.Connell. 1999.Multiple stressors on coral reefs:A long-term perspective. l+ Limnology&Oceanography 44(3,part 2): 932—940. Lapointe,B.E. 1997.Nutrient thresholds for bottom-up control of macroalgal blooms on coral reefs in Jamaica and southeast Florida.Limnology&Oceanography 42(2,part 5): 1119— 1131. Littler,M.M.,and D.S.Littler. 1984.Models of tropical reef biogenesis:The contribution of algae. Progress in Phycological Research,(Round/Chapman[eds.])3: 323—364. McCook,L.J. 1999.Macroalgae,nutrients,and phase shifts on coral reefs: Scientific issues and management consequences for the Great Barrier Reef.Coral Reefs 18:357—367. Van Willigen,J. 1986.Applied Anthropology:An Introduction.Bergin&Garvey,South Hadley, Massachusetts.