Initial observations on the content of the Act 2 "EIS"

A friend just got a call from a Honolulu reporter seeking comment already on the Act 2 "EIS," and she asked me what I have noticed about it's content. So, I did a quick review of the document and here are some of my initial observations:

Belt Collins has formated the document so that it cannot be easily 'cut and pasted' into other documents. This will delay my work by a day.

From Page 8 of Vol. 1, "Alternative vessel designs [that meet the large capacity ferry vessel requirement] or other modes of transportation providing a similar benefit were not evaluated, as these issues are not within DOT-Harbor's management or control." -- Actually that is within DOT-Harbor's mgmt. and control.

From Page 9 of Vol. 1, "Unresolved issues: Two issues are unresolved [by this draft]: control of invasive species and recreational users within commercial harbors." -- This is unacceptable. How can control of invasive species not be fully addressed in a real EIS? What would the canoe clubs in Kahului and Nawiliwili harbor think of this oversight?

Not in Section 2.1.5.2 nor elsewhere in this "EIS" do they evaluate the possible effects of any other large capacity ferry vessel companies other than Hawaii Superferry. Dan Hempey expressly mentioned in one of the Scoping Meetings that document preparers should consider the possible effects of multiple large capacity ferry vessel companies in addition to HSF.

The No Action Alternative on the whole project at Section 2.2.2 of this "EIS" is not adequately developed. There is no content or serious consideration to it.

This "EIS" appears to be for the benefit of one company, consistent with Act 2.

Aloha, Brad