WAI’ALE DEVELOPMENT- FINAL EIS TALKING POINTS

QUICK FAX:

• 2550 units on 545 acres. 6,670 new residents
• 300 county affordable units. 563 affordable workforce units.(34%)
• 1687 market priced units (66%)

MAIN POINT: The Wai’ale FEIS does not meet state Environmental Standards. It is incomplete and downright evasive!

HAR §11-200-16 EIS Content requirements.
“The contents shall fully declare the environmental implications of the proposed action and shall discuss all relevant and feasible consequences of the action. In order that the public can be fully informed and that the agency can make a sound decision based upon the full range of responsible opinion on environmental effects, a statement shall include responsible opposing views, if any, on significant environmental issues raised by the proposal.”

Please come and testify

LUC expects to take all testimony on the A&B project on THURSDAY NOV 3 ONLY. TESTIMONY is limited to 3 minutes (that has changed from the past)
TESTIMONY IS TAKEN  only when when actual agenda item is called.
KULA RIDGE WILL BE HEARD FIRST. THAT COULD TAKE ONE HOUR, OR MORE.

TALKING POINTS: (pick one or more- plenty to choose from)

WATER: 1 million gallons per day (mgd) required for landscape irrigation. plus another 1.9 to 2.8 mgd more for household use and fire flow. NO CONFIRMED SOURCE.

EIS does not give specific information re: the project’s water supply. It claims that “it’s too early in the process.” (read Environmental law above)

Water Conservation measures will be used “if feasible”

Surface water: If 2 to 3MGD stream water is used, the EIS concludes there will be no impacts to traditional native Hawaiian practices, agriculture or other public trust resources because “no additional diversions are proposed.”

EIS does not discuss the rights of kuleana tenants to these diverted waters. It concludes that the loss of 9 mgd of ditch water would have no impacts to agriculture.

Water Commission comments note there is no stream capacity left to issue permits for this plant. FEIS ignores this comment.

Ground water: If well water is used, the EIS does not discuss impacts to Kahului or Waikapu aquifers, other than to say that:

“The island of Maui possesses vast underground reservoirs of potable water” with no actual proof of this statement.

Would wells in Kahului and Waikapu aquifers interconnect to Iao? It’s not discussed.

EIS does not mention what two onsite wells and a large water storage reservoir on site are planned for because they “are not part of the project.”

WASTEWATER DISPOSAL: Project will generate 980,000 gal day

No clear plan for wastewater disposal.

EIS mentions possible on-site plant, but seems to prefer sending waste away.

No commitment to location of any onsite plant. may be in project area or across Kuihelani HWY. Not really discussed. If onsite plant there will be injection wells.

Appears preferred plan is to try to squeeze MORE wastewater into existing , overworked Kahului treatment plant in tsunami zone.

County asked A&B to discuss a NEW regional desperately needed plant for Waikapu area. EIS avoided the topic.

Final EIS stated that county Environmental Management office consulted with A&B and decided the County should build any new central Maui wastewater facility.

No written communication in FEIS to this effect.

SCHOOLS: New Middle school planned on site, in noisy area. EIS says this is standard.

EIS never listed number of actual students and grade levels generated by project.

All EIS provide this info!

EIS sidesteps issue of overcrowded Maui high schools and only discusses a new middle school site. Claims DOE only mentioned that need.

Gives no figures, but assumes Kihei High will solve overcrowded high schools. Assumes DOE impact fees will solve any needed capacity for new school children from the project

Projected Waiale population is 6,670 residents. EIS pretends this will generate 58 new students! The rest will all already live on and go to school in Maui.

BURIALS/ CULTURAL SITES

88 burials already displaced by sandmining. After years of Burial Commission work, all but 4 or 5 of these will be preserved in place.

Un-mined dune area proposed for high density development!

The problem: Several large intact dunes likely to have many more iwi..

EIS never addresses the question: what is the extent of the ancient cemetery on these lands, and how can disruption be minimized?

FEIS claims numerous trenches dug by archaeologists, found no iwi, therefore “probability is low”.

FEIS Doesn’t mention that 282 trenches covered around 500 acres= 1 trench every 1.7 acres. COULD something have been missed?

Project’s Cultural Impact assessment (CIA) leaves out testimony of key cultural practitioners even though they asked to have it included..

An old section of plantation ditich is proposed for preservation, but a traditional hawaiian rock alignment isn’t even documented.

Project’s Arch survey listed participants in the 2005 project charettes as “consulted parties” even though the AIS was done in 2010.

Project needs a Ethnographic Study before EIS is complete, due to high concentration of high value cultural properties (burials, Ali’i grave goods, etc)

Project Needs section 106 consultation process, triggered by Federal endangered species review.

RISK OF MAN MADE HAZARDS ON SITE

Waiale development site adjoins an unlined former municipal landfill (Waikapu dump) , Includes a former vehicle disposal facility, blacktop contractors yard, ag fields with reported pesticide spill and feed lots.

The community design includes several industrial areas alongside proposed affordable housing which the EIS admits will impact noise levels and air quality above unacceptable levels.

Bottom line: plenty of potential stuff to contaminate air, ground water and soil. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment included in the DEIS (Appendix M) acknowledges that it did not include “sampling or analyses of soil, groundwater or other materials.” Does that seem like environmental review to you?

PRESERVATION OF DUNES AND NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY

Natural dunes on site are the main unique feature.

They took 80,000 years to form, but are described as “degraded” with no specifics given. This means they can be “defined as insignificant” and bulldozed for high density development.

One dune ONLY is proposed for preservation- described as in” relatively undisturbed condition”. In truth, it has been heavily impacted by sand mining, but it has over 70 burials.

It should be preserved, along with 4 or 5 other large dune systems that have not been mined.

Waiale’s Cultural Impact Assessment describes dunes as “cultural resources” whether burials present or not. EIS never refers to them as such. Ignores CIA.

This disregards Hawaii constitutional mandate for all actions to consider impacts on natural and cultural resources.

NO DISCUSSION OF PROTECTING HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED NATIVE MOTH or PUEO ON SITE

Endangered Blackburn sphinx moths have found a home on this land.

EIS refers to some vague future plan to “mitigate” thIs rare and beautiful native moth and allow a “taking.” The moth has been documented on site for several years.

An EIS should be clear about it’s plans to protect a rare, federally protected species.

It deserves to have a place to live on site.

HAR 11-200: “Special emphasis shall be placed on [describing impacts to] environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region and the project site (including natural or human-made resources of historic, archaeological, or aesthetic significance)

The federal consultation process on the moth should also trigger a federal Section 106 consultation process on historic properties. This is not discussed in EIS.

The presence of native pueo on site, described by virtually everyone interviewed for the CIA, is dismissed as being non-native barn owls. FEIS concludes that no one has proven they have seen a native pueo. They conclude that non-native pueo have no cultural significance, which may not be true. FEIS does not acknowledge that even barn owls, although not a listed endangered species, are protected by federal migratory bird treaty.BOTTOM LINE: EIS should not be final without an approved habitat plan for native moth and bird species.

FEIS NEEDS TO RESPECT MAUI ISLAND PLAN (MIP) PROCESS

Dozens of citizens testified in support of a large open space area in the center of this project at MIP. meetings

Two citizen panels ( GPAC & Maui Planning Commission) and County Planners all supported the MIP map below.

Citizens never reviewed the A&B version of Waiale map during MIP process.

It’s a bait and switch to say that Waiale needs to be built because it’s “recommended in the MIP.” What’s being presented in the EIS is a different project.

RESPECT ENVIROMENTAL LAWS THAT REQUIRE ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DESIGNS:

EIS needs to show a version of the Waiale community design with the Maui Island Plan map.

Why: EIS law requires that alternative project designs that lower impacts be thoroughly discussed.

the MIP Waiale Plan w/ “open space” map solves some problems for this project.

a) reduces impacts to known and future burials (80 plus burials already disturbed on site)

b) provides a buffer between unlined Waikapu landfill and county affordable housing project (note: A&B proposes an industrial area as a “buffer” instead)

c) reduces water demand for project if dunes left natural, less irrigated area.

d) preserves more natural dunes: gives sense of place.

e) Creates an “urban oasis” for walking bike paths, possible memorial park for the great battles of the central plains

WAI’ALE CONSULTANTS SAY THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE “TEXT DESCRIPTION” of the project in the MIP.

PROJECT’S DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY REVIEW PROCESS NOT TRUTHFUL.

A&B convened community discussion groups in 2005 and had folks talk about the “kind of town they wanted”

The EIS has lots of reference and PR materials about this process. It was even used to suggest “there was consultation” on cultural sites.

All this is very overstated. People came and shared their manao in 2005, but the whole project design has changed since then.

EIS does not mention that residents were not informed about scores of burials present; endangered species present, hazardous sites,etc.

EIS does not mention why Maui island Plan maps were adopted with large open space in Waiale project, after lots of citizen input

FYI: OUR LAW- EIS REQUIREMENTS: HAR 11-200

“The draft EIS shall include a statement of the probable impact of the proposed action on the environment, and impacts of the natural or human environment on the project, which shall include consideration of all phases of the action and consideration of all consequences on the environment; direct and indirect effects shall be included. The interrelationships and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action and other related projects shall be discussed in the draft EIS. It should be realized that several actions, in particular those that involve the construction of public facilities or structures (e.g., highways, airports, sewer systems, water resource projects, etc.) may well stimulate or induce secondary effects. These secondary effects may be equally important as, or more important than, primary effects, and shall be thoroughly discussed to fully describe the probable impact of the proposed action on the environment.”