For years, the Hawai`i Belt Road in South Kona has been the bane of drivers in a hurry. It is narrow and winding and provides few opportunities for overtaking slower-moving traffic.
Since the late 1980s, the state Department of Transportation had been planning to widen the road and iron out its curvier stretches. Last year, the road became an election issue and suddenly the DOT decided to put off no longer the planned improvements. Without obtaining the needed Conservation District approval in advance, the DOT proceeded to begin grading preliminary to the widening and straightening of the road as it cut through the Kipahoehoe Natural Area Reserve, land set aside by the state for management and protection of its unique natural qualities. Among those unique qualities is what is thought to be one of the largest populations anywhere in the islands of the Hawaiian hoary bat, the only land mammal native to Hawai`i and a federally listed endangered species.
Time Travelers
Although the DOT began the work without obtaining a Conservation District Use Permit, it was fully aware that such was required. In April 1992, the Department of Transportation paid the DLNR the required $50 fee for processing its Conservation District Use Application for this project. Moreover, apparently in response to the department’s preliminary feelers with the DLNR on filing a CDUA, it had been told that the DLNR would need more information on the flora and fauna in the area than what was provided in the DOT’s original environmental assessment for the project, written in 1990.
Finally, in January, the Department of Transportation made an after-the-fact application for a Conservation District Use Permit to allow the roadwork, which would be occurring in the Protective subzone of the Conservation District, the subzone where the strictest limits on development apply. To indicate compliance with the state’s environmental-impact disclosure law, Chapter 343, the department submitted in conjunction with its application the 1990 environmental assessment. Notice of availability of the environmental assessment had been published in the May 23, 1990, Office of Environmental Quality Control Bulletin, along with a so-called negative determination — a finding that there would be no significant environmental impacts from the project.
The cover page of the EA shows it to have been prepared by Environmental Communications, Inc., a private consulting firm, in May 1990. But a review of the document submitted to the Office of Conservation and Environmental Affairs, the arm of the Department of Land and Natural Resources that supervises activity in the Conservation District, shows it to be substantially altered from the original EA on file with the OEQC.
The most prominent changes have to do with the inclusion of two day-long studies conducted in March 1992. The studies themselves were included as two new appendices to the original document. In addition, the table of contents and text of the EA were altered to reflect the changes. At no point, however, is any attempt made to indicate that the environmental assessment submitted to the DLNR is other than that which was subjected to public review and comment in May 1990.
The discrepancies in the two documents were brought to the attention of Brian Choy, OEQC director. On March 17, Choy wrote Keith Ahue, the DLNR’s new director, concerning the matter.
“Since this project is in need of a CDUP and the supporting 1990 environmental assessment has been revised, we request that the Department of Land and Natural Resources submit an environmental assessment to our office to initiate the public review process under Chapter 343,” Choy stated.
No response from the DLNR was available by press time.
Substantial Questions
The issue of process aside, the quality of the information added to the environmental assessment has been questioned by some. For example, the Big Island manager for the DLNR’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Charles K. Wakida, was sent a copy of the CDUA and environmental assessment for his review and comment. The new “avifaunal and feral mammal survey,” conducted in 1992, drew his criticism. He wrote: “According to the map, the survey was performed in Site #1, which is approximately 2 miles from the Natural Area Reserve. Project Site #2 is in the Natural Area Reserve. Was the survey actually done in Site #1 or Site #2? Is this simply a mistake in the inclusion of the wrong map?
“Also, the author acknowledges, and we wholeheartedly agree, that ‘A short field survey can provide only a limited perspective of the wildlife which utilize the area.’ Do we feel this survey is adequate, particularly with regard to the possible Hawaiian Hoary Bat populations? We feel like we’re spinning our wheels here, since DLNR has given DOT an emergency authorization to commence work, but we do feel it important that we impress upon DOT the importance of the leg work involved here to avoid this sort of foul-up in the future.”
Wakida concluded: “In summary, we reiterate our concern for the discrepancy in the fauna survey map and our desire to impress upon the DOT that we are less than pleased with the way this whole project’s environmental review process has been handled. The variety of errors in this document also points to what could be perceived as a casual attitude towards the whole procedure, and we must say this is cause for considerable concern.”
About the only benefit to come from the Kipahoehoe roadwork is a settlement with the Natural Area Reserve System Commission. According to the preliminary terms of the settlement (it was not final as of press time), the DOT will pay $80,000 to finance a NARS-sponsored study of the hoary bat.
And Lapses Elsewhere
The Transportation Department frequently makes after-the-fact applications to state agencies from which it is required to obtain permits for its various projects.
In late March, the Commission on Water Resource Management was processing at least two after-the-fact applications by the DOT for stream channel alteration permits. In one case, the DOT relocated access to the Castle Hills subdivision above Kane`ohe, disturbing Kapunahala Stream. No SCAP had been sought, nor did the DOT apply for one until residents complained to the Commission on Water Resource Management. Following that, in November, the Commission on Water Resource Management issued a cease-and-desist order to the DOT and the DOT subsequently came in with a permit.
Construction of the Hale`iwa bypass road has also been done without the required permits from the CWRM. In this case, again, the DOT has applied for after-the-fact stream channel alteration permits for disturbances to Helemano and Opaeula streams, the Anahulu River, and Ukoa Pond.
Volume 3, Number 10 April 1993