‘Natural Dam’ Army Would Blast Might Be Part of an Ancient ‘Auwai
Following the drowning of a soldier on maneuvers last December, the Army sought to lower the water level of the pond into which he had fallen. To do so, it proposed blasting what it described as a natural dam on a tributary to the South Fork of Kaokonahua Stream – a proposal that, as described in the April 1993 edition of Environment Hawai’i was criticized by the state Division of Aquatic Resources of the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
In mid-March, the state Historic Preservation Division (of the DLNR) provided its comments on the proposal to the Commission on Water Resource Management, to which the Army had applied for a Stream Channel Alteration Permit. According to the memo from Don Hibbard, the division’s administrator, to Rae M. Loui, CWRM deputy director, the Army’s “dam” might well turn out to be a part of an ‘auwai, the irrigation system built by ancient Hawaiians to carry water to taro fields.
Hibbard wrote: “Since this is a federal undertaking, the Army must comply with the National Historic Preservation Act… We believe that before this project can proceed, compliance with that Act necessitates that a qualified archaeologist will have to conduct an archaeological survey of the project area.
“This determination was made due to the following reasons: 1) no archaeological surveys have been conducted in the area of the East Range pond at Schofield Barracks, so it is uncertain if significant historic sites are present there; and 2) the dam needs to be investigated by a qualified archaeologist to determine whether the subject dam is ‘natural’ or manmade, since given historical and archaeological information from similar areas where intermittent stream channels exist, we believe that there is a high probability that his dam and resulting pond may be part of a traditional Hawaiian ‘auwai…”
Land Board Has Harsh Words for DOT
On May 14, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources approved a Conservation District Use Permit sought by the state Department of Transportation for what it described as “emergency” work on the Hawai’i Belt Road in the Kipahoehoe Natural Area Reserve (in the South Kona district of the Big Island).
The staff report, approved by the Board, contains unprecedented harsh language critical of the actions of a sister state agency. According to it, “the emergency authorization [for the project] was ostensibly issued for safety and public welfare reasons but was more urgently needed because of the applicant’s contractual obligations and lapsing funds for the project…. The Department’s [DLNR’s] accommodation of the applicant’s construction schedule does not excuse the applicant’s negligence in this process. The environmental assessment for the project was completed in 1990 and published in the OEQC Bulletin. There was ample time to file a conservation district use application before allowing bids on the project to begin. Failure to have done so is incompetence on the part of the DOT.
“Neither the Department or the Board is responsible for the competency of DOT. However, in accommodating their schedule, the Department has appeared to mismanage the Conservation District Use Application process. It is fortunate that only a small section of Kipahoehoe Natural Area Reserve was involved with the project and that a faunal survey albeit brief, did not detect Hawaiian Hoary bats in the project area. The environmental impact of the project could have been much worse than it was.”
Although the “Background” portion of the staff report states that “work on the road section in the Conservation District began before February 26, 1992, without authorization from” the DLNR, the “Analysis” section states that “the project was authorized by an emergency authorization before construction began.” For this reason, it says, “there is no violation of conservation district rules” and so no fine is warranted. Instead, the Board is asked to approve as a condition of the after-the-fact permit a requirement that the Director of Transportation promise in writing “that this type of action will not occur again.”
Bohnett Builds First, Seeks Permits Later
On April 6, 1993, West Hawaii Today carried a legal notice of a “proposed action” by the state Department of Health. Pu’u Lani Ranch, Inc., the notice said, was seeking the department’s permission to construct and operate 34 drywells to accommodate runoff from a 77-lot, 144-acre subdivision. Pu’u Lani Ranch, at Pu’uanahulu on the Big Island, is closely held by F. Newell Bohnett, whose management of the state-leased Pu’uwa’awa’a Ranch has been the subject of much controversy over the last 15 years.
The legal notice caught the attention of Keith Wallis of E Mau Na Ala Hele, a private organization that works to protect and promote hiking trails statewide. That group has tried so far without success – to develop a trail plan across land that Bohnett owns or controls.
In a May 2 letter to the Department of Health, Wallis told Health Director John Lewin that he believed the application should be denied for two reasons.
First, Wallis said, “the applicant should be applying for an after-the-fact permit, not a regular permit. Drywells on the applicant’s property have been completed.” Wallis enclosed a photo showing a completed drainage well.
Second, he said, “the advertising for public comment is not accurate and leads the public to believe that no construction work has been started on the drywells.”
After reviewing a map indicating location of the drywells, Wallis raised further concerns in a letter to Lewin dated May 17. Noting what he said was a “possible discrepancy” on the application, Wallis informed Lewin that two of the wells are located on a road that belongs to the state of Hawai’i. “At least since last August and possibly earlier, Pu’u Lani Ranch has been trying to buy the government property; but to my knowledge, the sale has not yet been finalized.”
“As of the date of the application, Pu’u Lani Ranch had neither title to the property nor right of entry for work to be done on the government property.”
OEQC Director Critical Of Maui Project Review
Maui County’s processing of Alexander & Baldwin’s proposal for a 104-lot subdivision of property along Maui’s North Shore has come under fire from Brian J.J. Choy, director of the state Office of Environmental Quality Control. In a letter to County Planning Director Brian Miskae dated May 15, 1993, Choy said his office had received calls from people concerned “that the project is being segmented in terms of its review and that an environmental assessment had not been required by the county of Maui.”
County Planning Department staff told Choy that “the proposed project will trigger Chapter 343, HRS, once a drainage proposal is presented,” Choy wrote. (Chapter 343 is the state’s environmental disclosure law.) “The possible triggers would be use of county land (under Hana Highway and at the county’s drainage easement) and use of the shoreline setback area.”
But, Choy noted, “neither the subdivision nor the drainage improvements could or would have the need to exist alone and should be analyzed as one project.” He recommended that “once the drainage proposal is presented, an EA should be prepared to analyze the impacts of the entire project and not just the drainage concerns.”
Volume 3, Number 12 June 1993
Leave a Reply