Caufield & James LLP
Environmental Lawyer
July 15, 2024
Re: Kamehameha Schools, Keauhou Bay Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear County of Hawaii, Planning Department,
I am submitting these comments to the Kamehameha School, Keauhou Bay Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As an initial matter, I have over 30 years experience in the preparation of environmental impact reports and statements and after my initial review of the subject report it appears to be the most incomplete and deficient report that I have ever reviewed. However, before getting in to substantive comments I'll introduce myself.
A. Background Expertise
I graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in environmental studies and from law school from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. During undergraduate studies I worked at the Institute of Crustal Studies Vadose Monitoring Laboratory conducting cutting edge research in the movement of pollutants within the vadose zone (defined as the zone of soil between the surface of the earth and groundwater.) Prior to becoming an environmental attorney, I worked for several years as an environmental consultant. I also previously clerked for the United States Department of Interior, Regional Solicitors' Office and the California Department of Fish and Game, Legal Advisors' office. For the past 31 years my legal practice has been in environmental law where I have litigated dozens of cases on behalf of and against public entities related to Environmental Impact Reports and Environmental Impact Statements. I also have assisted in the preparation of many environmental impact assessments, including providing substantive comments and review on behalf of multiple public entities and a number of cities. Part of my expertise includes analyzing traffic impacts, runoff issues, noise impacts, air impacts and toxic/nutrient loading impacts from projects. I have spent literally thousands of hours over the last 30 plus years analyzing such impacts. To date, I have never lost of single case involving litigation over the sufficiency of an Environmental Impact Report or Statement. I have been considered by several courts to be an expert in environmental impact reports and litigation. In one of the last cases I handled involving the failure to prepare an appropriate EIR, the Court awarded over $400,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to my client as the prevailing party. That amount could have been avoided had Los Angeles County simply listened to the comments that we provided. Accordingly, we urge you to similarly listen to our comments as the failure to do so may result in a large and expensive piece of litigation. The environmental impact report and statement litigations have involved a number of subjects including impacts to the local coastal zone and waters. Additionally, I have litigated dozens of cases involving toxic substances, including damages caused to water bodies from excess nutrients and toxic substances. I am on the editorial board of the Environmental Forensics Journal. I am routinely invited to lecture both nationally and internationally on issues involving the detection and impact of toxic substances and nutrients on the environment, including coastal waters. For example, I was asked to speak at the International Environmental Forensics Conference in China where I spoke on the admissibility of expert opinions in environmental forensic cases related to toxic pollutants. I also have been published in a number of books, publications and have been interviewed numerous times as an environmental expert by local and national media. I also have been a frequent user of Keauhou Bay for over 20 years such that a number of my comments are based on my personal observations over the course of several thousand hours over the last 20+ years. For the past two years I have spent over 200 hours observing usage of the bay, including public usage, the boat ramp and commercial/tourist usage of the bay particularly related to some of the initial scoping documents to see if there was any veracity in the claims presented by the Project proponent.
B. Substantive Comments
As discussed supra, the subject EIS is facially deficient and must be rejected in its entirety. Under existing law, the EIS conclusions and analysis must be supported by substantial evidence to support the analysis and conclusions. It is the burden of the party preparing the EIS to provide support for the document. The failure to provide the required supporting evidence for the statements and conclusions requires that the document be rejected by the reviewing public agencies. For the most part, the EIS appears to be a series of unsupported statements and conclusions and written to appear more as an advertising document for the project intended to "sell" the project to both the public and regulatory agencies rather than providing any substantive research and/or analysis. The comments listed below are not necessarily all inclusive but highlight the many deficiencies. It is our understanding that a number of other experts will also be submitting comments highlighting the deficiencies in the EIS and those comments are referenced, adopted and should be considered to be included herein.
1. The Project Provides No Support Of How It Will Alleviate "Congestion" Use Conflicts
First, the EIS creates a straw man argument that Keauhou Bay suffers from "congestion" and conflicts with incompatible uses. There is no supporting study analyzing the existing number of users on a daily, weekly, monthly and/or annual basis nor the type and timing of the usage. Without such an analysis, the statement that there is a problem with "congestion" and/or "incompatible uses" is simply unsupported by any evidence. There are one or two photographs depicting people standing around the publicly owned dock area, which as people are congregating in publicly owned spaces the report fails to explain how the Project will prevent the public from congregating on publicly owned land. There is also Figure 3-13 which depicts a picture of the bay with ZERO people present, which directly contradicts any claim of congestion. Other than reducing access to publicly owned space, the project provides
no analysis
of how it will reduce the existing number of users nor the purported "incompatible" uses. Without underlying research, study and analysis the statements that the project would reduce "congestion" and/or use conflicts is unsupported and the EIS must be rejected on this basis alone. In fact, it would be reasonable to conclude that the project would substantially increase congestion and use conflicts at Keauhou Bay. For example, with the construction of 43 housing structures containing 150 housing units, which will each likely have 2 cars, with a minimum average of 4 car trips per vehicle per day, the housing units alone will likely add OVER 600 vehicles trips per day. (Based on my observations, the housing units alone will more than likely, on their own, double or triple the amount of traffic in the area.) Plus, you are adding hundreds of new visitors staying in the new housing on the bay, which presumably those new visitors will visit and use the bay. With the proposed cultural center, commercial center, commercial kiosks and employees/workers at the new proposed resort, there obviously will be a substantial increase in the number of additional vehicle trips per day. I'd note that the nearby Puʻuhonua o Hōnaunau National Historical Park ("City of Refuge") reports over 300,000 visitors per year to the site and cultural center. (Volcanoes National Park attracts over a million visitors per year.) Will the new proposed cultural center (located substantially closer to the City of Kailua-Kona so it will be much easier for visitors to access) attract a comparable number of visitors per year to the City of Refuge? The EIS provides no projections based on increased numbers from the cultural center. Even assuming the new cultural center only attracts 100,000 visitors per year (which is less than 33% the number that visit the City of Refuge), that equates to nearly 30,000 additional vehicles trips alone per year. (Note: the City of Refuge Parking lot has 75 parking spots plus there are usually 20 plus cars parked outside the gate, meaning that with staff there are 100 plus parking spots associated with the City of Refuge that are frequently full. The Project proponent has ZERO parking spots in the EIS for the "cultural center" beyond the existing parking.) The kiosks at Alii Marketplace have approximately 40 parking spots that are largely full most of the time. Accordingly, one would anticipate the "kiosks" at the Project will require comparable parking (if not more because kayak and SUP rentals are likely going to stay longer than visitors to Alii Marketplace.) Accordingly, it may be reasonable to conclude that the Project will add a demand for upwards of 140 parking spots to the existing parking demands. There is no study of the existing parking requirements not assessment of the future parking requirements should the project be implemented. Plus, the EIS identifies the launch ramp area as the area of purported greatest congestion and yet the project proposes to ADD substantial numbers of visitors and vehicles to the area of alleged greatest congestion. The launch ramp cue (i.e. Vehicles/trailers waiting to launch and/or pull-out boats) is noted as an area of greatest congestion. The cultural center is proposed to be built in the area of greatest congestion. The Project fails to explain how adding thousands (if not tens of thousands) of more people and vehicles to the area identified as having the greatest congestion will be reduced by the Project. Particularly, the EIS fails to contain projections as to the increase in number of visitors and vehicles to the area and the extent to which the Project will impact those levels. (Note: With 43 houses and 150 units being built on the bay likely housing 250+ tourists each day plus commercial kiosks with kayak and SUP rentals, the bay daily usage will also likely substantially increase and yet there is no estimate of that impact.) There is NO analysis of the impact on local flora and fauna from the likely increase usage of the bay arising from the project. Moreover, with the addition of SUP and kayak rentals on the bay, the Project is likely to increase conflicts with the existing boating usage of the bay for ingress and egress to the loading ramp and dock area. There is no analysis of the future impacts on existing uses of the bay with the addition of rental kayaks and SUP to the bay. For the foregoing reasons, the EIS must be rejected for failing to provide supporting evidence and documentation.
2. The Report Fails To Analyze Traffic Impacts
As discussed supra, the Project proposes to build a resort with 43 housing structures with 150 housing units (Note: the term "bungalow" seems to be an attempt to mislead the public in to believing that what is being proposed are not in fact large multi-bedroom homes), commercial kiosks, cultural center and commercial/retail center. It also proposes to build a new road connecting the north and south ends of the bay. As discussed supra, the Project will likely result in a minimum of hundreds, if not thousands, of additional vehicle trips per day. There is no study of the what the current number of vehicle trips per day are on the surrounding public roads, the level of impact of the existing stop lights nor the number of vehicles that travel from the south-north and/or north-south on the existing roadways that would conceivably use the new road. Accordingly, there is no evidence of what, if any, the amount of reduction on the existing roadways would be by the construction of a new road. Moreover, there is no analysis of the additional vehicle trips that would be created by the Project and what those impacts would be on existing traffic conditions nor existing parking. (Note: the impact of toxics on the bay from the Project will be discussed separately.) Moreover, the EIS fails to address how the Project proposes to mitigate the increased traffic impacts. Finally, the EIS asserts that the Project will reduce traffic impacts, without the citation to any evidence and/or study supporting that conclusion. The project also proposes to relocate the existing commercial snorkel boat vendors to the other side of the launch ramp, which means the snorkelers will have to walk across the purportedly congested boat ramp to get to the dock area and load on the snorkel boats. (Note: With the current buildings next to the dock, the snorkel visitors don't have to walk across the busy double-lane boat launch ramp. (One can just imagine how many people will get run over by people either trying to launch and/or pull boats from the water during the day and at night.) On this basis alone, the EIS must be rejected and further studies conducted.
3. The EIS Fails To Address Noise Impacts From The Project
The Project purports to build a large resort, commercial center, cultural center and commercial kiosks. The majority of the project will tear out historically forested areas for which the only noise being generated is by natural flora and fauna and replace it with a resort and new road. There is NO study of the existing noise levels in the area. There is NO analysis of what increased noise impacts to the area will be from the Project other than conclusory statements that are without supporting evidence and/or study. Obviously, the Project will materially change existing conditions related to noise through a substantial increase in activity around the bay. (Potentially adding thousands of new visitors and vehicle noise to the bay area on a daily basis.) An noise study must be conducted to analyze existing noise levels and potential future noise levels.
4. The EIS Fails To Address Air Impacts From The Project
The Project proposes to build a large resort, commercial center, cultural center and commercial kiosks. In building the project roughly 20+ acres of existing native forest will be destroyed to build the resort. As discussed supra, potentially thousands of additional vehicle trips will be added to the area without any analysis as to what the existing air quality conditions are nor the impact of the additional vehicular and project features are to the local air quality. For example, even if the cultural center only has a fraction of the visitation as the 300,000 plus visitors that visit the City of Refuge, that could generate tens of thousands of additional vehicle trips to the bay area on a yearly basis and have potential consequences to the local air quality. (Note: The area is generally not served by any public transportation, which necessitates vehicular travel.) A study needs to be conducted as to existing air quality and future projected air quality impacts from the project, including destruction of forest.
5. The Report Fails To Address Historical Runoff Issues
Currently, Kamehameha III Drive experiences flooding after even an average rainstorm. (Personal observations over the last 20 years.) Portions of the flooding appears to originate from Project lands and nothing in the EIS addresses how the Project will address existing flooding on Kamehameha III Drive caused by Project lands. The EIS also fails to address the fact that historically there were two sand volleyball courts. The 2
nd
court was situated in the publicly owned land between the seawall and the existing volleyball court. When the project proponent cleared lands (it appears illegally and without and EIS and/or other permit) to construct the existing parking lot and boat storage area the drainage was substantially effected and the rather than have vegetation slow the water flow, the surface flow rate dramatically increased and the 2
nd
sand volleyball court was washed out along with portions of the remaining volleyball court. (Personal observation.) Note: The EIS fails to address the permit status of the existing boat storage and parking lots on the northern side of Keauhou Bay and I could not find any permit with the County for the construction nor corresponding environmental documentation. Accordingly, it appears that the boat parking lot and other parking lot may be unpermitted. The Project proponent failed to make repairs to the 2
nd
sand volleyball court located on public lands and existing sand volleyball court that its apparently illegal development destroyed. The EIS fails to address the apparent illegal development of the current northern parking lot and boat storage lot nor the environmental impacts therefrom. Notably, the EIS fails to also address that to the North of the sand volleyball court is a historical catchment area that helped capture runoff from the northern area where the new parking lots and boat storage were added. (Personal observation and interview of locals.) The Project proponent has failed to maintain the catchment, which has contributed to excess runoff from the area that has damaged publicly owned property. In interview of locals, in the past there have been attempts by the locals to keep the catchment clear so as to reduce flooding from the upper areas. The EIS must address the permit status (or lack thereof) of the apparently illegally constructed parking and boat parking lots including the lack of environmental review thereof, the historical runoff issues from the Project proponent lands that have caused damage to publicly owned property and how the project will mitigate existing issues. For this basis alone, the EIS must be rejected and further studies and assessments conducted.
6. The Project Fails To Address Additional Runoff Impacts From Increased Hardscape
The project proposes to take existing native vegetation areas and tear them out in favor of building the resort, commercial kiosks and commercial/retail. Based on the review of project maps, it appears that roughly 15-20 acres of native vegetation will be removed and replaced with mostly hardscape. There is NO analysis of the existing runoff from the "as is" condition of the properties and project area. There is also no study/analysis and/or projection of the increase flow and rate of runoff from the increased hardscape. The potential increased flow has the potential to alter the fresh/saltwater balance within the eastern end of the bay, which could impact fish and coral. This is a requirement of the EIS. The failure to include such an analysis mandates that the EIS be rejected and further studies of historical, existing and potential future conditions analyzed with appropriate mitigation measures.
7. The Project Fails To Study, Analyze And/Or Provide Projection As To Increased Toxicity And Eutrophication Impacts To Keauhou Bay
As discussed supra, the Project proposes to add potentially thousands of new vehicle trips to the area surrounding Keauhou Bay every day. Also, the Project proposes to add a new road closer to the Bay that would carry the additional traffic along with re-routing existing traffic that is currently roughly more than a ½ mile away and that currently drains to an existing golf course and forest area. Roadways are well known for the ability to accumulate and dispense toxic pollutants during rainfall events. Thus, by positioning the roadway closer to the bay there is the potential for an increase in toxic pollutants entering the bay and impacting existing flora and fauna. There is NO study and/or analysis of the existing toxicity of runoff to the bay from nearby roadways. Additionally, there is NO analysis or projection of the concentration and ecological impact of the project and additional roadway on future runoff to the bay arising from the Project. Not only do roadways accumulate toxicants that runoff the roadways during rainfall events, but projects such as resorts with houses, pools, lawns etc... also have increased runoff of nitrates and phosphates. Nitrates and phosphates, among similar chemicals, are well known to cause eutrophication to water bodies. Golf courses also have the potential to release substantial amounts of nitrates and phosphates through runoff. Currently, the golf course to the east of the bay drains into the forest area, which the Project proposes to remove. The forest area likely acts as buffer that absorbs nitrates and phosphates that are captured by the existing forest area. At times, after heavy rainfall, the end of the bay closest to Project proponent's property can appear slightly green and with surface scum, which suggests that under current conditions there may be nutrient issues with the current runoff. Not only does the EIS fail to analyze existing conditions but also the impact of the removal of the forest, construction of the road and construction of the resort on the future release of eutrophic chemicals to the bay. On this basis alone, the EIS must be rejected and further study conducted.
8. The EIS Fails To Take In To Consideration The Historical Failure Of Proponent To Maintain Existing Facilities
The EIS fails to analyze the long history of the failure of the Project proponent to provide maintenance to the existing properties. The EIS vaguely references the long-term maintenance issues related to Project proponent's properties and then suggests that the maintenance failure is due to the lack of income from the properties and that in the future the maintenance will improve. Such a suggestion by Project proponent is misleading at best and verges on being an outright fraudulent misrepresentation. Project proponent is a $14.6 billion dollar entity according to its website. (See
) Thus, the suggestion that the lack of maintenance was due to the lack of funds is outright untrue as the Project proponent for all intents and purposes has an unlimited amount of funding available in which to conduct maintenance. Moreover, Project proponent has historically received funding from the Keauhou properties through the boat yard rental, parking, canoe club and building rentals such that the failure to conduct maintenance is inexcusable. For example, the existing seawall owned by Project proponent has been in serious disrepair for over a decade, with the wall having large pieces falling off into the ocean and no repairs have been made. Similarly, after Project proponent's construction of the apparently unpermitted northern parking lots occurred and the sand volleyball court built on public lands was washed away, Project proponent failed to attempt to any repair. Project proponent failed to maintain existing drainage structures to the north of the existing volleyball court. Moreover, the cultural heritage corridor (which they supposedly they care about) has been allowed to fail into disrepair, with broken benches for sitting, peeling paint, overgrown plants and trash that have largely gone unrepaired and neglected for the last decade or more. (Personal observation.) Thus, there is ZERO evidence to support that if the Project is approved that the Project proponent will suddenly and magically start to actually do maintenance on its' properties. As a result, the EIS MUST consider that the Project proponent will act EXACTLY as it has in the past and continue to fail to maintain its' properties and what the implications will be on the future for the Project based on the last many decades of neglect by the Project proponent. Moreover, the EIS fails to disclose and discuss the long history of scandal and abuse associated with Project proponents organization and what transparency will exist to ensure that the Project will do what it is supposed to do. (See e.g.
) The EIS mentions nothing of other "projects" such as the cultural center and botanical gardens along Alii Drive that Project proponent has abandoned and failed to maintain in the past and currently. There is NOTHING in the EIS that provides any checks and balances to ensure that the Project will actually be maintained and based on history on the Project properties and nearby failed projects by the Project proponent, it is unlikely that the Project will meet its' promises. Moreover, the EIS, based on the poor maintenance history by the Project proponent on these and other nearby properties needs to consider the impacts of the Project proponent continuing to conduct basic maintenance on the Project properties as it has done for decades. In other words, the EIS needs to address not only the lack of historical maintenance, other failed nearby projects, and the impact of the failure to maintain the Project in the future. (Typically, a Project such as this will have a detailed maintenance and upkeep schedule of the Project and mitigation measures that then can be adopted as conditions of the Project approval and be enforceable by regulatory agencies.)
9. The Project Blocks Public Access Across Publicly Owned Property
Based on the maps attached to the EIS, there is publicly owned property extending from the end of Kamehameha III Drive to the boat dock area. Currently, there is a path that extends from the end of Kamehameha III Drive to the boat dock area that allows access to the boat dock area. (personal observation and use.) However, the project proposal maps appear to block to existing publicly owned path from the end of Kamehameha III Drive to the dock area. Project proponent misleading fails to identify the existing path and access across publicly owned property. Nevertheless, the Project proponent proposes to block access to the public across publicly owned property, which is illegal. As a result, the EIS must be rejected and the current public access preserved in future versions should be Project wish to move forward.
10. Destruction Of The Sand Volleyball Courts Violates Proponents Charter As Well As Access To Publicly Owned Property
Historically, there were two sand volleyball courts located on the east end of Keauhou Bay. One of the sand volleyball courts was located at the western edge of Project proponents' property, which is the existing volleyball court. According to locals, the existing volleyball court has been in continuous use by the public, including locals and in particular local kids for at least 35+ years. Dozens of comments have been submitted stressing the importance of the sand volleyball courts to the local community. With the limited number of sand volleyball courts available locally, this is the primary sand volleyball court used by local kids who want to learn how to play sand volleyball. As women's sand volleyball is now a collegiate sport and men's sand volleyball is also poised to become a men's collegiate sport, the existing volleyball court is a critical resource for local kids hoping to not only learn how to play volleyball, but also pursue potential college scholarship opportunities. Notably, sand volleyball is one of the sports that most represented by local Hawaiians in the Olympics. Up until Project proponent cleared land to create the northern parking lot and boat parking, there was second sand volleyball court that was similarly used by locals. Project proponent proposes to eliminate BOTH volleyball courts and instead grass in the area as "open space." There is no analysis as to the impact of eliminating the existing volleyball court nor the impact on the local community and uses. Currently, there is roughly 10-20+ adults and kids that utilize the existing volleyball court on a daily basis. Accordingly, Project proponent should be required to analyze the impact of eliminating the existing volleyball court. There is nothing in the Project that would replace the 2
nd
court that was damaged by the excess runoff caused by land prior land clearing activities. At a minimum, the Project should be required to replace the 2
nd
volleyball court that was damaged by Project proponent's activities and to ensure that future runoff is controlled so it does not impact the sand volleyball court. Notably, historical photographs (See attached historical photograph from 1890) show that the East end of Keauhou Bay was a sandy beach ALL of the way up to the base of the hill to the East of the existing volleyball court. The seawall appears to be a late addition built within the existing high tide area. (See historical nautical chart dated 1949, which does not note the presence of any seawall.) Based on the 1949 chart, the seawall itself appears to have been constructed below the mean high tide line, which appears to be publicly owned land. Thus, a large grassy area constructed on Project proponents' property and on the publicly owned lands is incompatible with both historical and current uses. There is no analysis of the impact of the removal on historic cultural uses and current uses. To be consistent with historical uses on both the public lands and lands within the historical mean high tide, Project proponent should be required replace the sand that has been lost and to ensure that it cannot be washed away by excess runoff. Due to the failure to analyze the impacts of the sand volleyball court removal, proposed construction on publicly owned lands and within the mean high tide and the failure to consider future impacts, the EIS should be rejected. (Not to mention the failure to address seawall that is falling down.) Moreover, if Project proponent should consider moving forward in the future, the sand volleyball courts should both be replaced, the drainage fixed and maintained by Project proponent. All of the above should be supported by adequate usage and projection studies.
11. The EIS Fails To Address Congestion Caused Elsewhere By The Removal Of The Sand Volleyball Courts
It is my understanding that literally dozens of comments have been received outlining the usage of the volleyball court and negative impact from its removal. The remaining court is utilized on a daily basis by the public and local kids. It is a long-standing tradition that family's barbeque locally and play on the volleyball courts every weekend. With the removal of the remaining court, the usage will be transferred to already congested sand courts at Magic Sands Beach and Coconut Grove creating both congestion and usage conflicts elsewhere. The EIS fails to analyze existing usage nor where the existing usage would be relocated. It fails to address potential congestion caused at the other locations by the court removal. A study needs to be conducted of existing usage and the impact of shifting that usage to the 2 remaining sand volleyball courts in the area.
12. Existing And Future Impacts On The Coral In The Bay Are Ignored
The USEPA considers sedimentation, pollutants and nutrients to be some of the primary threats to coral communities. (
) A healthy coral community is key to maintain a healthy aquatic environment. The status of the health of the coral reefs within Keauhou Bay and the impact of existing sedimentation, toxics and nutrients has not been assessed. Current impacts from Project proponent's properties to the health of the coral reefs has not been studied nor assessed. The EIS fails to quantify the potential amount of sediment, pollutants and nutrients that may be generated from its construction activities nor from the Project. The EIS analyzes no potential mitigation measures that may be adopted to address past and current impacts to the bay from Project proponent's properties nor future impacts to the bay from the Project. As a result, the EIS is facially deficient and rejected so that the appropriate studies of the baseline conditions of the bay are studied and future project impacts are assessed and appropriate mitigation measures adopted to ensure the health of Keauhou Bay.
13. The EIS Fails To Consider Tsunami Impacts On The Cultural Center
Presumably, the proposed "Cultural Center" would contain hawaiian artifacts etc... However, the buildings that Project proponent proposes to utilize as a "Cultural Center" were badly damaged during the last tsunami (which was a relatively small tsunami.) If the Culture Center had been in operation during the last tsunami, precious artifacts would have been lost and/or destroyed. Instead, as the buildings housed snorkel tour businesses, all that was damaged was the buildings and their easy to replace contents. It is inconceivable that any entity that purports to be charged with a duty to protect cultural heritage would place a Culture Center at one of the highest at risk locations on the islands. (Due to Keauhou Bay's triangular shape and rapidly rising depths, a tsunami wave from a westerly direction is channeled, funneled and magnified by the shape of the bay.) This makes Keauhou Bay one of the locations on the western side of the island most likely to experience the largest tsunami impacts. The report fails to mention that entire buildings adjacent to the proposed Culture Center were destroyed by the last tsunami nor are any mitigation measures proposed. Without any information in the EIS it is unclear what if any protection would exist for the Cultural Center and any artifacts inside.
Threats to Coral Reefs | US EPA
Coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse and valuable ecosystems on Earth. This web site describes the importance of coral reefs, threats to them, and ongoing efforts to protect them.
14. The EIS Report Fails To Address Adequate Project Alternatives
The EIS and the Project proponent infer that there is a "need" for greater economic development and use of the property. However, the EIS fails to disclosure the current income levels from the current uses of the properties. Moreover, the EIS fails to address any "smaller" project alternatives. As everyone is aware, Project proponent has spent over a decade in construction of the Kahalu'u Ma Kai Project located on 22 acres nearby. (The hotel closed in 2012.) As that project historically operated a resort and was fully developed, logic would dictate that if Project proponent was concerned about income that property would an ideal location for a
resort. Currently, there is apparently no economic use being made of the Kahalu'u Ma Ka property and very little use for educational purposes. According to the locals, the primary use appears to be for private barbeques and events for select locals connected to Project proponent. (Notably, there seems to be very little to anything "cultural" about 22 acres of non-native mowed bermuda grass, which is a post-european contact non-native species.) Accordingly, if the income from the Keauhou properties is such a great concern, where they are currently making money, and Kahalu'u Ma Kai is making zero income, shouldn't the project be built on Kahalu'u Ma Kai and a more limited project build at Keauhou? The EIS does NOT explore that alternative. Moreover, across the street from Kahalu'u Ma Kai is, from my understanding, a former "cultural center" and botanical garden that was closed by Project proponent and appears to generate zero income. The EIS fails to analyze a situation where the resort would be constructed on that property and a smaller project constructed on the Keauhou properties. Again, the EIS should consider reasonable alternatives where Project proponents use underutilized properties near the Keauhou properties, and a smaller project be built on the Keauhou properties.
Conclusion
It would be hard to find a more defective and deficient EIS. In the last 30+ years I've yet to see a more facially defective and deficient EIS. The EIS reads like an advertising brochure with a bunch of unsupported claims and conclusory statements. The EIS appears to be written with the goal of misleading the public and regulatory agencies rather than informing them of potential impacts and setting out appropriate mitigation measures. There were virtually no studies conducted of the existing environmental conditions at, near and/or inside Keauhou Bay. Most of the summary conclusory statements have zero evidentiary support. In fact, most statements related to project impacts appear by use of simply common sense to be likely untrue, misleading and false. The Project proponent has the burden to conduct adequate studies of existing conditions and provide an assessment of future conditions, which is has failed to even remotely attempt to do so. The EIS should also assess mitigation measures to reduce the project impacts, which can then be adopted as conditions to the Project approval. Thus, if the mitigation measures and maintenance requirements be adopted as conditions of approval, they become enforceable by the County. The County of Hawaii legally cannot "weigh" expert opinion in deciding whether to approve an EIS. As there are no studies to support the conclusions in the report and multiple expert opinions pointing out the deficiencies in the lack of appropriate studies, projections and mitigation measures the County cannot legally approve of the EIS as drafted.
Very truly yours,
Jeffery L. Caufield
Photos of the actual letter he sent.
