HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-57.8 FinnTestimony to DLNR re Hawaiis Volcano Circus Ltd Application for Lease of State Land (TMK 1-2-9-15)Communication No. 2012 -57.8
February 20, 2012
State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources
P.D. Box 621
Honolulu, HI 96819
State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources:
Mahalo for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) on Hawaii's Volcano Circus's proposal for a direct lease with the
State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, a 59.6 acre parcel (TMK
(3)1 -2- 009 -015).
I applaud and support the achievements SPACE has made in providing a school and
other benefits (after- school classes, a Saturday farmer's market) for the children of
Puna and residents of the Kalapana Seaview Estates (KSVE) area. I hope that
through this process any future activities at SPACE (which adjoins the residential
KSVE) would not be permitted to cause disruption or negatively impact the
surrounding neighbors but would be inclusive of mitigation and avoidance
measures such that the peace and quiet of the community may continue.
I trust that the (HRS 343) process will be properly utilized such that: the EA would
be revised to contain full disclosure of proposed activities and construction; only
current or up -to -date information is included (i.e. not from 1997/8); and a
piecemeal process is not used (i.e. the Amended Special Use permit application
process should be included) such that we may have an accurate description of what
in its entirety is being proposed so that we are then able to determine potential
impacts, provide specific comments and make recommendations for mitigation.
The draft EA as it currently exists does not allow for this process to be undertaken
due to its vague, non - descriptive manner, inclusion of outdated information,
insufficient impacts analysis, and total lack of any mitigation. As stated in HRS 343
"the process of reviewing environmental effects is desirable because environmental
consciousness is enhanced, cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and
public participation during the review process benefits all parties involved and
society as a whole."
Please give my comments your full attention and mahalo for the opportunity to
participate.
Sincerely,
F. Kelly Finn
12 -262 W. Pohakupele Loop
Pahoa, HI 96778
1. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE EA
1.) Contains Insufficient Information
Overall, the EA is insufficient to be used in determination of potential impacts
in that it does not adequately describe all the proposed actions, the potential
impacts, the scope and duration of the proposed activities, and the affected
environment. Rather, the EA mentions hypothetical future development [buildings
and activities] on the State Land site without full descriptions. The lack of detailed
description of the proposal precludes the reader from giving consideration to the
potential impacts, both beneficial and detrimental, which may occur as a result of
issuance of the lease on the State Land parcel combined with issuance of the
amended Special Uses permit. Without full disclosure of all proposed building, land
alterations, and activities including the expected number of participants, residents,
vehicles, times of day, types of activities and their corresponding noise, duration,
times of day, and other relevant information it is not possible to determine the
expected impacts nor to suggest mitigation measures to reduce the negative
impacts.
The proposed activities that are mentioned in the EA are not described in detail and
other activities associated with the special permit (which were mentioned verbally
at the meeting held at SPACE on January 31, 2012) are not included in the EA at all
(including a food service operation; musical and theatre productions; increase in the
school's capacity, among others). See comment #2 for more detail on this.
The background information on the site fails to adequately describe the current
layout and activity level at the 10.35 acre site including dwellings, resident
population, daily vehicular traffic, and current activities. This baseline information
is necessary to make a determination of the expected impacts of the proposed
activities (during construction and for the 30 -year duration of the lease or the life of
the permit), potential cumulative impacts and to determine if and what mitigation
or avoidance measures would be prudent.
2.) Fails to Include the Amended Special Permit Proposal
As described in the October 13, 2011, letter from the County of Hawaii
Planning Department to the EA preparers, lease of the State Land is to be considered
the Special Use Permit (#1122) must be approved, therefore, linking these two
actions. I understand (from the Jan 31 meeting) the special use permit would
include the existing farmer's market and a number of monthly performances and
other activities, however, these are not included in the EA, and therefore, once again
it is not possible to determine the expected impacts nor to suggest mitigation
measures to reduce any negative impacts.
P�
The EA should in detail describe fully what is being requested in the application
Amendment to the Special Permit as it is integral to the proposed actions associated
with the lease of State land, in fact much of what is being requested to be included in
the Amended Special Use permit would occur on the State land parcel (including
buildings construction and use).
Lastly, the major concerns to surrounding residents is from increased noise and
traffic arising from activities proposed in the Amended Special Use permit.
Separating the two actions is essentially piecemealing the process and removes
public review and opportunity for comment from the true entire proposal. This is
counter to the intent of HRS 343, specifically §343 -1 Findings and purpose, whereby
"...The legislature further finds that the process of reviewing environmental effects
is desirable because environmental consciousness is enhanced, cooperation and
coordination are encouraged, and public participation during the review process
benefits all parties involved and society as a whole."
3.) Contains Outdated Information
The EA makes several references to a 1998 EA for a similar lease request and
includes references to and copies of agencies notified and letters received on the
1998 proposal. information, surveys, and the finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) issued in 1998 should be considered outdated and irrelevent in 2012,
except as background information. The FONSI should be invalidated as conditions i
the area have changed, especially the population of KSVE (including homes located
in very close proximity to SPACE) has greatly increased since 1998. Given that 15
years has elapsed during which major changes in population, infrastructure, and
community characteristics of the area surrounding SPACE have occurred, in order to
accurately portray the current condition and determine impacts from SPACE's
proposed actions the EA must be brought up to date and information from 1997/8
should be deemed no longer relevant.
Also in Section 4: Relationship to Plans, Policies and Controls the EA states that "the
Board of Director's of KSVE representing the residents affected by these proposed
activities have expressed their absolute support for the desired use ". I asked the
Board about this at the KSVE February 13, 2012, Board of Director's meeting and
was told (by the Board) that the current Board did not do express their support and
does not have that opinion. This same section of the EA also states that the Village
Green Society, as a neighbor, supports the project; however, the Village Green
Society is the same entity and owner as SPACE, the applicant: and this is therefore
irrelevant. The actual neighbors of SPACE which may be affected are residents of
KSVE.
In addition, botanical and biological surveys done in October 1997 may no longer be
accurate and should be repeated as conditions may have changed in the past 15
years. The botanical surveyor noted the presence of a USFwS species of special
concern, the ko 'oko 'olau (Bidens hawaiiensis) fifteen years ago and its presence or
3
The public? Having it available for the community and possibly including
restoration and monitoring efforts would certainly be a benefit to the community
and the lowland forest ecosystem. Most important tin terms of the EA however is to
provide more information about the intended use and benefits.
The EA states that the "potential social impact is that the communities served will
benefit in many ways ". This statement is vague because of the lack of detail (i.e.
what ways exactly ?) and it fails to mention negative impacts which may impact the
neighboring community by noise and traffic associated with the permit and use of
leased land.
Section 2.3.2 states future long -term plans may include an educational /vocational
and /or industrial arts center; 12' x 16' residential structures and a 12'x 20'
washroom area. The long -term plans and required permits should be described to
the best degree that they can such that neighbors would know what to expect and
such that impacts can be anticipated and potentially mitigated.
The EA fails to adequately describe if the proposal would provide the community
with opportunities to conduct ecologically sustainable activities (e.g. growing food
or other sustainable materials, participating in restoration activities, conducting
nature walks or ecological monitoring, etc.) or other benefits on the [leased land]
site.
3.) Impacts Section
Section 3 of the EA, titled Environmental Setting, Impact, and Mitigation
Measures gives a cursory overview of the environmental setting, a brief mention of
some potential impacts while others are missing altogether. It fails to include
cumulative affects and makes no mention of any proposed mitigation measures.
Overall, the impacts mentioned in the EA appear to be subjective and conclusions
are largely unsubstantiated. An EA should contain factual information and
supporting evidence for any conclusions. An example of an unsubstantiated claim is
in section 4.b where it says "..the additional volume of traffic to be generated by the
proposed activities should be very low." This statement contains no factual support
and rather can be taken as a subjective opinion which is meaningless. It leads the
reader to seek the [missing] factual information (e.g., what is the expected
additional Volume in traffic? what is'low' defined as? Etc.) in order to determine
potential impacts and propose mitigation.
Biological: In terms of potential the biological impacts, possible and expected
impacts to flora and fauna are absent from the EA. Nor is there sufficient
information to assume no impacts.
Noise: The EA states the proposal "should not significantly affect the overall ambient
noise quality of the area ". However, actual noise impacts are neither described nor
are impacts considered. Expected increase in visitor use and mode of transportation
5
absence today should be determined and its approximate location in terms of
proximity to the proposed construction sites should be described. The avian surveys
did not include the presence of the Hawaiian hawk'io (Buteo solitarius), frequently
observed soaring overhead in the KSVE area but did include the presence of two
native forest birds, the apapane (Himatione sanguinea) and the amakihi
(Hemignathus wens). In addition, it is very likely that the Federally endangered
Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) or'ope'ape'a, presently protected
by both federal and state laws, is present on the ~60 -acre State land parcel as they
have been sighted (by myself and other residents) in KSVE.
11. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON SECTIONS of THE EA
1.) Traffic and Noise
The EA proposes that an additional 21,000 sq ft of parking area (to
accommodate 100 cars) to reduce traffic and noise on West Pohakupele Loop and
Kehauopuna Street be created. The only mention of level of service (numbers of cars
expected to use the entrance road and parking lots) in the EA is a statement that the
proposed industrial arts center will add an anticipated 20 vehicles per week There
is no supporting evidence to this extremely modest estimate so it is unknown to the
reader what it is based on.
All expected vehicle traffic expected from all proposed activities in the amended
Special use permit and on the proposed State land lease area should be disclosed
such that impacts to the residents of KSVE can be determined. The EA mentions that
the extra parking lot would alleviate traffic problems, however what is not
considered is that every vehicle that parks at SPACE arrived there by driving
through KSVE and entering SPACE through its driveway (which is contained on 2
KSVE subdivision lots). once the vehicles turn off West Pohakupele Loop into the
SPACE gravel driveway there is considerable noise made by every vehicle. Nearby
neighbors (such as myself) hear every single vehicle which enters and exits SPACE,
night and day. The proposed increased vehicular traffic will cause an increased
negative impact (noise) to neighbors and no mitigation measures are included.
Driving on gravel makes a considerable amount of noise. I propose there should be
included a requirement to somehow reduce or alleviate the noise made by vehicles,
such as to pave the driveways or install permeable pavement or other on -the-
ground methodology to lessen the noise of vehicles especially with increased traffic
with their proposed activities in order to reduce impacts to KSVE residents and help
retain the quiet nature of the area.
2.) Community Benefits
The EA mentions an Environmental Educational Nature Trail to support HVC's
existing education and community programs will be on the remainder of the 59 -acre
parcel. However, no description of what programs they are referring to and who will
benefit are included. Is it intended for use by the school children? The community?
with its associated noise are not adequately described nor are impacts discussed. An
industrial arts center with woodworking activities could generate a substantial
amount of noise (power savers, etc.) as could 12 additional homes yet there is no
information included. Also and importantly by not including the application for the
amended Special permit there is no chance for disclosure of potential noise impacts
of increased traffic and performance activities. I personally am not opposed to
performances, etc. but I want to retain my quality of life (peace and quiet) and
therefore there needs to be consideration of noise mitigation measures.
Socioeconomic: once again, the document states that the proposed facility is
intended to "service the existing and future population of the area" however in wha
manner and how is not described. It is "not expected to significantly affect land
Values" however there is no supporting evidence for this statement.
Environmental: The EA states there will be no impact since "none of the structures
will be visible from any existing public roads nor any existing residences ". However,
the proposed clearing and grading of 3 acres would have an impact on the
environment (loss of habitat, removal of vegetation, etc.) and on some adjacent
KSVE neighbors and should be discussed. This impact, were it acknowledged, could
be offset by some planting native trees or other habitat improvement activities and
during construction by use of best management practices (BMPs).
Section 3.3.1 states that "access to the property is paved" however that is only true
of the section on County roads including roads in KSVE not the actual entrance to
SPACE (which goes through two KSVE lots). It states the access road will be graded
and cindered. See above paragraph (on Traffic and Noise) for comments and
proposed modification to gravel roads as part of noise mitigation.
Section 3.3.1 also states that "the industrial arts center will add an anticipated
average of 20 Vehicles per week" however no supporting information is provided to
explain the estimate. It also states that "the other proposed activities all support
existing programs and will not therefore impact existing traffic numbers ". However
in the meeting it was described that performances are included in the permit along
with the Saturday farmer's market, a weekly bazaar, and other activities that bring
in many people and cars. This needs to be fully disclosed (by including the Amended
Special permit information) including the number of Vehicles and the impacts
discussed; and mitigation measures can then be included.
Section 3.3.6 says the Industrial Arts Center will have a generator back -up and this
should be discussed especially with regards to type of generator and potential
impacts (noise, fumes) it could have. It is stated that the Industrial arts center
"would serve certain cultural, educational and recreational needs of the
community". How and for who should be described in detail as opposed to a Vague
statement.
A *i
The EA says that approximately 54 acres of the State land parcel would be
designated as a nature preserve, however, no mention is made of who this nature
preserve would be serving, if access would be granted to the community and if so
from what location and when and for what purposes; what modifications to the land
would occur in this area (a nature trail was mentioned elsewhere); and other
details.
Section 4E states that there would be "more than adequate buffers between the
proposed activities (not well described) and surrounding properties ". This is
difficult to determine from the EA from the maps (no houses) and lack of KSVE
subdivision description (i.e. close proximity of neighbors). The exact location and
distance from the proposed activities to homes should be described along with
times of use and descriptions of what these activities would consist of and then the
potential impacts should be described. Also, without including the Amended Special
Use Permit application proposal this [subjective] statement is not only
unsubstantiated but misleading.
Section 5B states that "its noise and vehicular impacts will be negligible" and this is
pre - decisional once again due to the lack of detailed description of proposed uses
and increase in LOS (associated with the proposed activities covered under the
permit and use of buildings on state land).
Section 5E says "Landscaping would be provided" however what type and location
should be described. Will this include only native vegetation? If not there is a risk of
spreading non - natives to the remainder of the 59 -acre parcel. Are they proposing
removal of any non - natives to improve the site?
Maps
The maps on pages 21 -23 (pages not numbered however) do not clearly show what
is currently at SPACE's 10.35 -acre site and what is being proposed as new
construction. The site map on p. 23 is very confusing, not clearly labeled and
contains errors. It is dated 1998 and should therefore be removed and a new
current map included to clearly show: existing houses in Belly Acres and KSVE,
existing roads and parking areas in SPACE, boundaries of SPACE's existing 10.35 -
acre parcel and the State land 59 -acre parcel; and clearly delineate sites of proposed
new construction and activities, in order to determine impacts due to proximity.
Lastly, Section 5's determination of a Negative Declaration (or a FONSI) is
premature and based on inadequate information as the proposed activities
(included in the Amended Special Uses permit), construction of structures and
increase in visitor use are not adequately described and therefore impacts cannot be
fully assessed.
FA
III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Update EA with all missing information (see the State guidelines at
h of 20ocuments E ironmental Assessment ri i
e Kit D EA -FEA- Checklist. df ) and fully disclose all proposed activities and
anticipated impacts from the proposal to lease the State land and include the
P P P
proposal to amend the Special Uses permit. By including the request for an
Amendment to the Special Use Permit 1122 the community would have the
opportunity to comment on this and would be able to ascertain community benefits
(could include: use of proposed facilities, job creation, use of State land, and other
possibilities). Remove references to the 1998 EA and its associated actions (except
as introductory background material) as it is outdated information and should no
longer be considered relevant.
B. The major neighborhood concern is likely to be noise impacts. To reduce these
impacts look into noise abatement mitigation including, but not necessarily limited
to: installing soundproofing in all buildings that would generate noise (e.g. the
performance space, industrial arts center) and sound proof gravel road /driveways
through some road surface modification (paving or other). Once the Amended
Special Use Permit proposal is included there would likely be additional noise
mitigation recommendations from its proposed activities.
C. Develop a land management plan to provide for taking care of the 59 -acre parcel
(as was recommended by OHA in a letter dated February 10, 1998) including:
Habitat improvement /protection: To protect and enhance habitat for native birds,
revegetation and /or other habitat improvements of the site could be considered.
For example, native vegetation (described below) favored by the two native birds
seen during the original survey could be planted if found to be scarce. Also, the
Hawaiian hoary bat may be found on the site (the 1997 biological surveys only
included avian surveys) and as such may be able to benefit from management
activities as well. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Hawaiian Hoary
Bat Recovery Plan (1998) habitat loss is thought to be a factor in the bat's decline. It
further states that the availability of roasting sites is believed to be a major
limitation, along with other threats including pesticides, predation, prey availability
and roost disturbance, among others. They describe the usefulness of education
programs to inform the public along with other actions as beneficial to the bat.
Native birds in Hawaii have been shown to benefit by activities which improve their
habitat and increase their reproductive success (see below information from the
State of Hawaii's 2005 Wildlife Report), including: reducing the feral cat population
which can be facilitated through spaying and neutering, controlling the rat
population which could be assisted by traps or other methodologies, and by fencing
out wild pigs or other ungulates to protect native vegetation and reduce standing
water which breeds mosquitoes and leads to disease in bird populations. Some of
these measures may be worth considering on the 59 -acre State Land parcel to
0
provide a net benefit to native ecosystems at risk in Hawaii; and to benefit and
educate community members and school children through participation in a
community project.
Biological monitoring and Education: Monitoring (plants and animals) and
education could also be accomplished on the 59 -acre parcel jointly with students
and community members. Biological monitoring exposes people to their natural
environment and instills a sense of pride and ownership. This is especially true of
monitoring sites where revegetation actions have been done by the same group.
Education on native species and their habitat needs could also be included in a
management plan and would be consistent with State and Federal recovery and
management plans.
D. Fully disclose proposed /expected benefits to the community and the
neighborhood, whatever they may be, such that they know what to expect and can
be included if that is a proposed option. Meeting with the neighbors in an open
manner to share information and receive suggestions should be done in an inclusive
and accommodating fashion.
Biological Information from the State of Hawaii's 2005 Wildlife Report:
Hawaii Amakihi
Hawaii 'amakihi are generalized foragers that most often glean arthropods from the
leaves, blossoms, twigs, branches, and less frequently from tree trucks of a variety of
trees, ferns, and shrubs. Feeds on nectar predominately from the flowers of 'ohi'a
(Metrosideros polymorpha), mamane (Sophora chrysophylla), and native lobelias
(Campanulaceae), but also forages on flowers of a number of other native and non-
native plants. Hawai'i'amakihi also eats fruit from native and non - native plants, but
predominately from pilo (Coprosma spp.).
CONSERVATION ACTIONS: Hawaii 'amakihi likely have benefited from management
activities designed to conserve other endangered forest birds in the Hakalau Forest
National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and the 'ola'a /Kilauea
Watershed Partnership. These efforts include fencing, ungulate and small mammal
control, forest restoration, habitat monitoring, and studies of disease and disease
vectors. In addition to these efforts, future management specific to the Hawaii
'amakihi may include the following:
1. Translocation of captive bred individuals to Lanai and Kaho'olawe.
2. Public education and outreach.
3. Continue protection and management of wildlife sanctuaries and refuges.
4. Continue forest bird surveys and habitat monitoring. This information is
needed to assess the efficacy of habitat management efforts.
Apapane
The `apapane was also found in the 1997 avian survey. As described in the State of
Hawaii's 2005 Wildlife Report, historically, `apapane were common at low
elevations on all islands with appropriate habitat. In addition to the management
efforts described for Hawaii 'amakihi , future actions specific to the protection of
'apapane populations may include the following:
1. Mosquito control in degraded habitats.
2. Public education and outreach.
3. Continue protection and management of wildlife sanctuaries and refuges.
4. Continue forest bird surveys and habitat monitoring.
Biological Information from Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit [University of
Hawaii at Manoa] 2007 Technical Report 140 [Hawaiian Hoary Bat Inventory
in National Parks on Hawaii, Maui And Molokai, by Fraser et al.]:
Hawaiian Hoary Bat
The only native terrestrial mammal in Hawaii, the 'ope'ape'a, appear to be
opportunistic and forage in a variety of habitats, including native and nonnative
forests and shrublands, along roads and trails, and over areas of fresh /brackish
water and open ocean. Bat surveys conducted in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
detected bats in many locations including in ohia dominant areas while surveys
conducted at Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National historic Park bats recorded bats
foraging between 10 -40 m offshore. Prior surveys (by Reynolds et al. (1998))
observed Hawaiian hoary bat detections in the Puna District along forest edges and
open areas of roads they surveyed, which may suggest that bats occur most often
along forest edges, rather than in the forests themselves. The State land parcel
proposed for lease contains patchy ohia lowland forest and is located in close
proximity to the shoreline, and, therefore bats may be utilizing the parcel (for
roosting and /or feeding habitats).
10