Mehana Blaich Vaughan's comments on the Act 2 Pseudo-'EIS'

The following are Mehana Blaich Vaughan's of Kauai comments on the Act 2 Pseudo-'EIS'. First a summary introduction from her and then her letters of comment:

February 23, 2009

To Whom it May Concern:

I humbly request that the following mitigations not presently included in the draft EIS be considered:

o Super Ferry could contribute a certain percentage of profits to organizations such as Kaua'i and Maui Invasive Species Committees as well as to environmental education programs.

o Super Ferry could hire island residents to present welcoming information on each trip including environmental education, orientation, safety warnings (beware of swimming there), guidelines for visiting with respect, and reminders of rules regarding harvest of resources.

o The Super Ferry could contribute funding to County Police Departments to assess whether drivers disembarking are impaired by alcohol consumed on board, decreasing the risk of drunk drivers on our single two lane highway. Funding for additional traffic control when ferry disembarks, as well as crime enforcement and monitoring, would also be useful.

o Super Ferry could also contribute a per passenger fee to County Parks and Recreation and to DLNR, two agencies tasked with maintaining sites Super Ferry passengers are likely to visit.

o Super Ferry and the county could split funding for local people from a particular area to serve as kia'i there, enforcement officers who monitor our coastlines and mountain areas. These could include fishermen, who while they fish to feed their families and kupuna, also monitor the health of the fishery, people taking too much, invasive limu creeping in etc. They could pull out trash during their coastal patrols, engage visitors in picking up litter as well, warn people about the day's water conditions and where it's unsafe to swim, and generally educate about the area. The same could occur with hunters and cultural practitioners who work with native plants in the mountains. This program could increase job opportunities for area residents with cultural expertise (beyond the visitor industry). Super Ferry county partnerships could fund one (building to two) positions per moku.

o Super Ferry, in addition to requiring tires to be free of dirt, could prohibit transport of plant materials, coolers of fish, seaweed, boats, fishing and dive gear, boats, and other equipment that is either high risk for invasive species transport into sensitive environments, or facilitates exploitation of fragile resources on island.

o Super Ferry could offer lower vehicle fees to vehicles containing more riders and thus reducing traffic impact, i.e. lower per vehicle cost for vehicles containing 4 riders, than those containing 1-2.

o Super Ferry should be required to work with local invasive species control to create plans for public review addressing transport of particularly worrisome invasive species not yet established on Kau'ai such as ohi'a rust, gracilaria saliconia seaweed, Varroa bee mites, miconia, mongoose, and coqui frogs. Education should be provided on board.

o As certain as they seem of their invasive species protections, Super Ferry should be willing to pay for monitoring to measure whether its operations are increasing invasions, and make a sizable insurance down payment which they forfeit as soon as once a new invasion can be traced to its ship, at which point all operations cease..

o Super Ferry could offset all of their carbon emissions, and those of the cars disembarking from the ferry, by contributing to local carbon control projects such as alternate energy or re-vegetation with native species.

o Super Ferry could run once or twice a week to each island, on days when more locals can actually travel, potentially saving 90 million in spending on a second boat, money that could be used to pay back debts to taxpayers.

o Most effective of all, Hawai’i Super Ferry could run with passengers, but not vehicles to minimize ecological, traffic, safety, crime, cultural and other impacts.

Sincerely,

Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Address



FROM:
Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Address

TO:
Katherine Kealoha
Director
State Office of Environmental Quality Control
235 S. Beretania St., Suite 702
Honolulu, HI 96813
fax: (808) 586-4186

Michael Formby,
Deputy Director
State Department of Transportation, Harbors Division
79 S. Nimitz Highway
Honolulu 96813
fax: (808) 587-3652

February 23, 2009

Dear Ms. Kealoha and Mr. Formby:

Mahalo for your time and responses to the following comments on the Draft EIS regarding environmental impacts.

1) Please comment on how different islands might be differentially impacted by invasive species risks. In the draft EIS, Kaua’i is listed as not having any of the species of concern except for beard grass.

2) The Draft EIS only addresses existing invasive species of concern. However, the problem with invasive species is that we fail to deal with them until they are already widespread. Please comment on the probability of HSF’s increasing the spread of invasive species to which Hawai’i is vulnerable, even if they have not yet become a problem within our state.

3) The Draft EIS cites protections mandated in Executive Order 710 as reasons that certain impacts aren’t significant. However, it doesn’t discuss (nor recommend) the longevity of these requirements and practices. Existing practices, such as having inspectors on board, not allowing fishing nets, and requiring all mud to be washed from vehicles, should be continued at current levels and expanded as a mandatory mitigation. None of these measures were included in the Ferry’s original operating plans, but were negotiated conditions of being allowed to run before the EIS had been completed. They need to be required to continue.

4) Further, these measures in and of themselves are inadequate. The numbers of items confiscated (ie. Lobster, opihi etc.) are cited as evidence of the success of inspections. However, once taken from reefs and beaches, these items have already been removed from the ecosystem. The damage is already done by the time they are found. The EIS does not call for any enforcement measures to prevent resource violations at their source, before they occur. Kaua’i citizens suggested that HSF be required to pay for one additional DLNR enforcement officer per moku (district). By hiring island residents, the ferry could increase it’s positive economic impacts. With the state’s recent financial crisis, and departments like DLNR facing a hiring freeze, requiring HSF to fund mitigations is even more critical.

5) In general, measures cited as rationale for issues not rising to significance (impending “blitz” inspection) need to be required mitigations. The longevity and funding for these measures needs to be addressed since the EIS is assuming their existence. HSF should be required to help fund them and the EIS findings should be contingent on their continued funding and implementation.

6) In addition, the EIS, and current inspections only consider resource violations, such as taking more than the legal limit of a resource under state law. However, the ferry stands to increase the number of people harvesting a given resource so that, even if they all only take their legal limit, they could significantly deplete that resource (i.e. limu or mokihana). This concern is never addressed, though it could be mitigated by banning all transport of formerly living organisms (plant, animal or marine materials). This would also decrease pest transport.

7) There is no mention of a specific pathway of invasive species transfer documented to have increased with interisland ship traffic in the Galapagos, over much further distances than HSF will travel. In a recent study, insects followed the lights of the ships at night, spreading to new islands upon which they previously weren’t found.


As a citizen, I would also like to thank all of those involved in the production of this draft EIS. It is clear that much effort has gone in to this document as well as much attention to past public reaction and concerns. Mahalo for your time and attention.

‘O au iho no me ka ha’aha’a,

Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Teacher and Doctoral Candidate
Halele’a, Kaua’i


FROM:
Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Address

TO:
Katherine Kealoha
Director
State Office of Environmental Quality Control
235 S. Beretania St., Suite 702
Honolulu, HI 96813
fax: (808) 586-4186

Michael Formby,
Deputy Director
State Department of Transportation, Harbors Division
79 S. Nimitz Highway
Honolulu 96813
fax: (808) 587-3652

February 23, 2009

Dear Ms. Kealoha and Mr. Formby:

Aloha mai kakou,

Mahalo for your time and responses to the following comments on the Draft EIS regarding cultural impacts. My name is Mehana Blaich Vaughan. I was interviewed by Cultural Surveys Hawai’i in the summer of 2008 as part of the preparation of the Draft EIS. I also was present at the interviews of more than seven other community members. However, our concerns and proposed mitigation measures, while cited into the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) are not addressed in the draft EIS. The four mitigations which are proposed to protect cultural resources for Kaua’i are insufficient.

I submit the following comments.

1) The draft EIS notes only subsistence fishing as being impacted by the Ferry in Nawiliwili harbor. There needs to be more thorough investigation of the impacts on canoe paddling, including consultation with Kaiola and Niumalu canoe clubs. Though both practice in the harbor, neither appear to have been contacted or to have participated in the study. In addition, the study falsely notes that canoe races do not take place in the harbor area. While it is true that sprint season regattas no longer do, at least one long distance season race uses the harbor area. While security zones will not be as large as they were during the HSF’s original failed dockings on Kaua’i, the hours of operation still stand to impact both six man canoe paddling by club members and private one manning activities.

2) A number of suggested mitigations which appear in the summary of the cultural impact statement for Kaua’i do not appear in the Draft EIS as recommended mitigations:

a. At least two individuals interviewed on Kaua’i suggested passenger transport only (no vehicles) as the only mitigation which would ensure protection of cultural and environmental resources on our island. This mitigation is not considered at all within the EIS.

b. Mandatory labeling of vehicles transported on the ferry while on their destination island. Currently, much of the EIS analysis projecting what super ferry users will is based on surveying a small number of users. This data is particularly poor for the Big Island and Kaua’i which may attract entirely different user groups (possibly more hikers, campers and fishermen). A labeling program would enable data collection on actual vs. reported activity.

3) Different suggestions are listed for each of the islands to mitigate cultural impacts. Please comment on whether each island requires the same measures and if not, what are the implications?

4) Please add mitigations for the Big Island (i.e. consulting body to monitor impacts) to Kaua’i isle as well.

5) In the Draft EIS, biological resources are considered for each of these islands in the immediate harbor area as well as for the island. Cultural resources, however, are considered island wide only for O’ahu. On each of the neighbor islands, where impacts on cultural resources stand to be most significant, only the immediate harbor vicinity is considered in the draft. This limited scope as pertains to cultural resources could lead to significantly underestimating cultural impacts and should be expanded for the final draft.

6) Allowing for public comment on the draft EIS is listed as a mitigation for cultural impacts on Kaua’i. This is insufficient. I was interviewed for the EIS process, yet I was not sent a copy of the EIS in any form. I was contacted to review the transcript of my interview on a secure web link however was unable to access it on two occasions. If someone directly involved in the process finds it difficult to obtain the information and comment, the process of public engagement is not adequate. This requirement must be strengthened and further explained.

7) Another suggested mitigation is for DLNR to create a plan. Is implementation (not just drafting) of this plan (with appropriate public comment and oversight) a prerequisite for ferry operation to Kaua’i? What mechanisms are in place to ensure effectiveness of the plan and it’s implementation?

8) An interview not included in the CIA at all was conducted with five Kaua’i youth. They emphasized concerns not found anywhere in the EIS. Many attend Kamehameha Schools on O’ahu and they talked about differences between O’ahu and their home that made them concerned about the ferry. Basically, they said that in rural parts of Kaua’i, everyone knows each other and keeps an eye on each other. They were concerned about the anonymity, and being able to get away, which inter-island vehicle-passenger ferry transport would inject. The students themselves described this concern much more clearly and their words should be included in the repot.

Finally, for Kaua’i, the recommendations at the end of the CIA should be incorporated instead of the four now listed in the Draft EIS. Those of the CIA are copied below:

1. Participants in the community consultation phase of this project should be
afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the draft CIA (i.e., the
subject document).

2. All parties involved in the planning, oversight/review and implementation of
the proposed project should understand that, from a Native Hawaiian
perspective, potential threats to natural resources are one in the same as
potential threats to cultural resources; similarly, it is important for all parties
to recognize that the entire island of Kaua‘i will be impacted by the proposed
project, not just Nāwiliwili Harbor or Līhu‘e.

3. Approval of the proposed project should be conditional upon the Department
of Land and Natural Resources developing a mitigation plan to enforce
conservation laws intended to protect various natural resources, including
marine life, pōhaku and plants, that have important cultural and spiritual value
and significance for Native Hawaiians and other kama‘āina; such a plan
would ensure that Kaua‘i’s unique resources are not replaced with undesirable
ones (e.g., harmless invasive species).

4. Concerns about impacts on long-established fishing spots, surf breaks and
dive places throughout Kaua‘i and at Nāwiliwili Harbor should be addressed
in public-access meetings and forums throughout the island.

5. Should any significant historical or cultural resources, including human
skeletal remains and / or burial sites, be exposed during proposed construction
activities, all work in the area of the find should immediately cease and the
appropriate agencies should be contacted, in accordance with applicable laws
and rules of historic preservation in Hawai‘i.

6. Project proponents should consider making approval of the proposed project
conditional upon some type of educational program that could be offered to
inter-island ferry riders as a way to introduce and sensitize them to the kinds
of concerns voiced by the participants in this CIA.

7. Project proponents should proactively consult with the wider community of
concerned citizens on Kaua‘i regarding all aspects of the proposed project, in
order to address certain issues that have been raised by participants in this
CIA, but that are not necessarily “cultural” issues, per se (e.g., police checks
for alcohol-impared ferry riders, adequecy of bathroom and waiting-area
facilities in Nāwiliwili, etc.).

8. Project proponents should consider recommendations made by community
participants to lessen the impacts Hawai‘i Superferry may have on natural and
cultural resources on the island of Kaua‘i. Two participants recommended
specific mitigation measures they feel should be incorporated into the Hawai‘i
Superferry operations at Nāwiliwili. They are as follows:
• Ferry-passenger vehicle signage.
• On-board mandatory natural and cultural resource gathering law education.
• No items (natural or cultural resources) allowed on Hawai‘i Superferry.
• No passenger vehicles allowed on Kaua‘i via Hawai‘ì Superferry.
• No four-wheel drive vehicles or trucks allowed on Hawai‘i Superferry.

Mahalo for the opportunity to participate in this process.

‘O au iho no me ka ha’aha’a,

Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Teacher and Doctoral Candidate
Halele’a, Kaua’i


FROM:
Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Address

TO:
Katherine Kealoha
Director
State Office of Environmental Quality Control
235 S. Beretania St., Suite 702
Honolulu, HI 96813
fax: (808) 586-4186

Michael Formby,
Deputy Director
State Department of Transportation, Harbors Division
79 S. Nimitz Highway
Honolulu 96813
fax: (808) 587-3652

February 23, 2009

Dear Ms. Kealoha and Mr. Formby:

Mahalo for your time and responses to the following comments on the Draft EIS regarding cumulative impacts.

1) The cumulative impacts section is starkly insufficient. While a number of cumulative impacts (including cultural ones) are listed, only traffic receives any analysis at all. Affected ahupua’a are listed as the scope of cultural impacts but only Nawiliwili is discussed when cumulative impacts affect all ahupua’a on Kaua’i. We are referred to other DOT plans. The discussion which does exist within the EIS is superficial, concluding no significant cumulative impacts in a variety of areas.

2) Cumulative impacts is the primary issue with the super ferry raised repeatedly in public testimony, letters to the editor etc. regarding HSF operations. The super ferry is perceived by many to be “the straw that will break the camel’s back.” While parts of the EIS claim that the ferry’s impacts are only considered important when added to other existing impacts, there is no methodical comparison of how the ferry’s impacts in socio-economic or cultural or environmental areas might add on to those existing. In addition, there is no analysis of proposed projects or reasonably foreseeable.

3) The study uses a degraded baseline rather than considering a more abundant state in the harbor areas as well as other areas of the island.

4) There is no consideration of synergistic or interactive cumulative impacts.

Mahalo for your time and attention.

‘O au iho no me ka ha’aha’a,

Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Teacher and Doctoral Candidate
Halele’a, Kaua’i


FROM:
Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Address

TO:
Katherine Kealoha
Director
State Office of Environmental Quality Control
235 S. Beretania St., Suite 702
Honolulu, HI 96813
fax: (808) 586-4186

Michael Formby,
Deputy Director
State Department of Transportation, Harbors Division
79 S. Nimitz Highway
Honolulu 96813
fax: (808) 587-3652

February 23, 2009

Dear Ms. Kealoha and Mr. Formby:

Mahalo for your time and responses to the following comments on the Draft EIS regarding socio-economic impacts.

1) The draft EIS emphasizes the economic benefits of the ferry. I am curious about the additional costs, to the state, of ferry operations. HSF has received massive loans from the state. When might we expect those to be paid back? What is the estimated costs of agricultural inspections etc.?

2) Might the indirect costs now judged insignificant, rise to significance if their costs to the state were considered?

3) Might the ferry be required to contribute to offsetting any of these costs (i.e. paying to help implement DOA’s new biosecurity plan)?

4) The number of additional off road vehicles per day (3-12) anticipated for Kaua’i, is judged to be small. However, for a small island, this impact could certainly be significant, especially in rainy weather.

5) Increased use of recreational areas is judged to be potentially significant, however, the effects are claimed to be diminished if users are dispersed between sites. In order to substantiate such a claim, more analysis needs to show intensity of use of various sites. On what grounds is it reasonable to expect dispersal? It is our experience that certain areas such as Ha’ena and Polihale receive a disproportionate amount of use. Would this trend continue with super ferry visitors and how would it affect their impacts?

6) Similarly, off road vehicles are likely to disproportionately affect Koke’e. Analysis to show otherwise?

7) The Draft EIS also states that additional park users can be regulated under existing DLNR regulations and that significance depends on management. However, these regulations are not currently enforced and additional users from the ferry or any other source will only exacerbate this problem. Therefore, it is irresponsible and insufficient, not to consider additional recreational impacts on parks (along with camping, off roading, and fishing) as significant.

8) The magnitude of impacts are not considered as percentages of existing use (i.e. not just an absolute increase in fishermen, vehicles, campers etc., but what this increase represents in relation to existing use). For rural, outer island communities, small numbers may be much more significant than they initially seem.

9) No negative health and safety impacts are listed here, only the positive impacts of transport in case of emergencies. Kaua’i teachers interviewed for this study raised a specific safety concern regarding kidnapping and the inability to track vehicles.


Thank you to all of those involved in the production of this draft EIS. It is clear that much effort has gone in to this document as well as much attention to past public reaction and concerns. Mahalo for your time and attention.

‘O au iho no me ka ha’aha’a,

Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Teacher and Doctoral Candidate
Halele’a, Kaua’i


FROM:
Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Address

TO:
Katherine Kealoha
Director
State Office of Environmental Quality Control
235 S. Beretania St., Suite 702
Honolulu, HI 96813
fax: (808) 586-4186

Michael Formby,
Deputy Director
State Department of Transportation, Harbors Division
79 S. Nimitz Highway
Honolulu 96813
fax: (808) 587-3652

February 23, 2009

Dear Ms. Kealoha and Mr. Formby:

Mahalo for your time and responses to the following comments on the Draft EIS regarding the process of EIS preparation.

1) SCOPE: The scope of the EIS is prohibitively narrow. While considering the effects of harbor improvements is important, it is the island wide impacts of ferry users that are of far more concern. The draft EIS addresses some of these island wide impacts and notes their importance, at least on Kaua’i. However, the narrowed scope leaves out some key areas of analysis.

2) ALTERNATIVES: Related to the problem of scope is a concern that the alternatives considered are too limited. For example, it would be helpful to see analysis of the action level of harbor improvements with lower frequency ferry trips (for example once or twice per week instead of every day to Maui). Reduced trips is a money saving and easily adaptable alternative which should be considered in the EIS.

3) FULL BUILD OUT (4.1.2.1): This analysis leaves out consideration of full build out projections for Kawaihae and Kahului (2c,3,4). Full build out scenarios appear to be covered throughout the EIS except in this area where they include substantial dredging and construction. Here, it is said these options will be considered at a future date as they require more information. However, as part of the plan, they need to be fully considered within this document.

4) There is no overall chart that I could find which lists all of the impacts in each category – direct, indirect, and cumulative and which are considered significant and which aren’t and why.

5) It is very possible I have confused some of the issues from the Draft EIS in these comments. If so, it is because their presentation and lack of easily accessible summary charts is confusing. This is a substantial barrier to public participation and comment.

Overall, too few impacts rise to the level of significance, particularly in the areas of cumulative, socio-economic, and cultural impacts.

As a citizen, I would also like to thank all of those involved in the production of this draft EIS. It is more thorough, in research, analysis and scope than most EIS’ I have seen conducted in Hawai’i. It is also clear that many of the concerns and mitigations referenced in the document arose through the public’s actions in response to the HSF’s launch in 2007. I expect that the response to this round of public comments will be as thorough and sincere.

Mahalo for your time and attention.

‘O au iho no me ka ha’aha’a,

Mehana Blaich Vaughan
Teacher and Doctoral Candidate
Halele’a, Kaua’i


[Mehana is a teacher on Kaua'i and completing a Ph.D. at a leading university. She is one of the young people that Kaua'i will heavily rely upon in the future. Mehana was "in the water" but has been reserved and quiet over the past year on this. Very impressed with these letters she has written.--ed.]