 |
|
Section 309 Draft Enhancement
Assessment and Strategy
The Hawaii CZM Program submitted the Section 309 Assessment and Strategy that covers the five-year period from FY 2006-2010. Section 309 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act establishes a voluntary coastal zone enhancement grants program to encourage states and territories to develop programs in one or more of nine coastal zone enhancement areas. The nine enhancement objectives are wetlands, public access, coastal hazards, CSI, energy and government facility sitting, marine debris, ocean resources, special area management plans, and aquaculture.
Please contact us for questions/comments.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 3:00 p.m.
Room 414 of the State Capitol
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 2:00 p.m.
Cameron Community Center, 95 Mahalani Street, Wailuku Maui
Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 2:00 p.m.
Lihue Library
Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 2:00 p.m.
Conference Room C of the State Office Building, 75 Aupuni Street, Hilo
Friday, March 10, 2006 - 2:00 p.m.
Ali'i Room, King Kamehameha Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona
COMMENTS TO DATE
Oahu, February 23, 2006: Attendance 7
Synopsis of Comments: Ocean Resources "Characterization", needs clarification for future threat.; review some "threat levels" for more accuracy; priority direction for Cumulative and Secondary Impacts appropriate and strategy for Ahupua'a/Watershed management development good. Correct typos but compilation of efforts reported is good.
Maui, February 28, 2006: Attendance 2
Synopsis of Comments: Public access to coast in West Maui area difficult; access getting difficult in south Maui; no access in Nahiku Valley area; state lands should be available for coastal access; look at Maui coastal land trust activities; more special areas should be designated in state.
Kauai, March 2, 2006: Attendance 2
Synopsis of Comments: Assessment reports all "good news". Shouldn't some of the "failures" be discussed, i.e., aquacultural enterprise failures? All islands have watershed alliances, should be mentioned; need coordination amongst ahupua'a/watershed groups needed; the restoration of streams should be emphasized; ORMP should address special area management concerns
Hilo , Hawaii, March 9, 2006: Attendance 0
No comments
Kailua-Kona , Hawaii, March 10, 2006: Attendance 1
Synopsis of Comments: Kona Soil and Water Conservation District with ties to Kohala Center, a non-profit reef protection and water quality organization, very interested in draft. Discussed connection of CZM program to concerns about sewage disposal, land-based runoff, grading controls, production of R-1 water for irrigation and Hawaii Fishery Council. County of Hawaii is discussing the establishment of “Development Plan” Areas coinciding with 6 existing SWCD boundaries. Each area would contain several ahupua'as. Cumulative and Secondary program changes for the development of ahupua'a management structures is of great interest.
Attendee took copies of “draft” to disseminate to interested parties.
Mahalo for the opportunity to talk with you about the "Assessment and Strategy" document.
All of my comments were recorded but I just wanted to emphasize a few things:
- pg. 38 The columns and the horizontal lines for the 4 & 5th years should match.
- pg. 26 should include references to some of the disasters, such as Ceatech Shrimp on Kauai and all of the shrimp farms at Kahuku on Oahu. A more honest view is needed.
- pg. 16 add all of the Kauai watershed partnerships.
- pg. 19 same as above. Agree with conclusions on pg. 20 and 21.
First of all, I think the document is very informative and points in the right direction for future actions. It is nice to note the accomplishments and not just the many frustrations. I am in agreement with 99% of what is said and I think it is well-stated and organized. Good job.
Some minor points that I would like to make - mostly limited to my little world of the Big Island:
PUBLIC ACCESS
I did not see any nuanced statements about the fact that unrestricted and ever-growing public access is not an unmitigated good. And I am not talking about the bother to the interests of the shoreline gentry here. There are many environmentally and culturally sensitive sites that are getting trampled and destroyed by overuse. Locals and traditional uses are being pushed out. As tourism increases, and morphs from tour-bus groups to free-and-independent jelly bean rental cars, we need more controls on where people go and what they do there. So is it really true that we need more access points? And more infrastructure (parking lots, bathrooms) at access points? Well, in some cases yes, in many, no.
HILO BAY WATERSHED GROUP
It's good that this group is mentioned - they seem to be doing a lot of positive work. The main findings of the group, as far as I can tell from attending a few meetings and reading their draft plan, is NOT that we need to adopt a bunch of mitigation measures willy-nilly in the belief that at least some of them will help clean up the bay, but that we need more data about exactly what the source, transport characteristics and fates of nutrients are. I think everyone agrees that some additional polluted runoff measures are no-brainers and are not too expensive and should therefore be adopted, and that enforcement of existing standard measures could always use a boost; but in reality, these may not be all that effective. Much of the pollution in Hilo Bay may be related to groundwater and cesspools, and another big component may be coming down the rivers from the forests. The need for more data and research does not come across in the assessment - I know that some government agencies are less than wild about the group's conclusions, but I think they are onto something.
SUBSIDENCE
I guess the decision to dismiss subsidence in and of itself as a serious threat - and to move what subsidence problems there are into the volcanic category - is mainly a technical issue. But I'm not sure that it is a good idea. Under this broad definition earthquakes in Hawaii are also volcanic - they are all the product of loading the crust with lava and magma.
The Kapoho to Pohoiki region is suffering serious subsidence on the coastline. Millions of dollars of property and the safety and perhaps even lives of residents are at stake. A good article on this was in a recent Environment Hawaii, which dealt with the quandary of permitting houses in TMKs that appear on maps to be high and dry but in reality are all but submerged. Another issue is road infrastructure. The County of Hawaii has finished an Environmental Assessment and is in the engineering stages of a several million dollar bypass road to get around a rapidly subsiding half-mile stretch of the existing coastal road near Pohoiki. This road is important for not only everyday access but also evacuation in the case of tsunami or lava flows.
I guess my point is that strategies for dealing with subsidence and volcanic hazard are distinct and perhaps should not be lumped in together.
I would consider subsidence seriously, particularly if the data is based on current USGS analysis. Hawai`i state govt. was totally unprepared for the Kalapana eruption, and the evacuees were never relocated, due to lack of planning/budgeting for infrastructure costs, as well as the (perhaps unanticipated at the time) cultural impact of relocation on the diverse community. But today, we do know those are front-line issues. Let's not behave like George W. and profess that we have anticipated Katrina and are under control, when in fact FEMA was totally unprepared for the destruction that followed.
ENERGY PLANTS
There is a statement that there are no new energy plants planned in Hawaii in the next five years. Not strictly true, as the County of Hawaii has issued an RFP for a waste reduction technology facility in Hilo that will likely be a waste-to-energy unit. It MAY not be up and running in five years, but that is the County's goal.
|
State of Hawaii >
Dept of Business, Economic Development & Tourism >
Office of Planning Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Search Last Modified: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:50:55 -1000 |
|