Show simple item record



Item Description

dc.contributor.author Quinby-Hunt, Mary S en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2012-01-27T20:17:52Z en_US
dc.date.available 2012-01-27T20:17:52Z en_US
dc.date.issued 1992-06-06 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Quinby-Hunt MS. 1992. Scoping Meeting Summary, Wailuku, Maui, March 9, 1992, 2 PM Session. en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10524/19353 en_US
dc.description OSTI ID: 883152. en_US
dc.description.abstract The meeting began with presentations by the facilitator, Mr. Spiegel, and Dr. Lewis, the program director from DOE. The facilitator introduced those on the podium. He then described the general structure of the meeting and its purpose: to hear the issues and concerns of those present regarding the proposed Hawaiian Geothermal Project. He described his role in ensuring the impartiality and fairness of the meeting. Dr. Lewis further defined the scope of the project, introduced members of the EIS team, briefly described the EIS process, and answered several process questions, noting that cable feasibility would be examined and that Native Hawaiian concerns would be addressed. Ms. Borgstrom stated that the ISIS Implementation Plan will be continuously refined and that impacts of reasonably foreseeable future activities would be examined. During the meeting, more than 90% of the commenters requested that the EIS identify and assess the relative merits and impacts of energy alternatives to the proposed action. Nearly 80% requested that the EIS investigate conservation and renewable forms of energy, such as wind, solar, and biomass. They suggested that integrated resource planning should be used, noting that the State is initiating such a process. More than 30% of the commenters asked that the EIS examine geothermal alternatives to the action including developing geothermal resources on Maui and using geothermal power on Hawai'i only on that island. One commenter proposed an alternative cable route that proceeds from Hawai'i to Lana'i and from Lana'i to Oahu with spur lines to Moloka'i and Maui as needed. Nearly 70% of the commenters made general statements concerning potential short- and long-term environmental costs and impacts of the HGP (particularly on pristine environments). Others were concerned about environmental costs to Maui, particularly the impacts of a land-based cable route on the south side of Maui and on Hawaiian homestead lands. More than half the commenters were concerned about the potential impacts of the HGP to cultural resources. They stated that the BIS should respect and address Native Hawaiian religious and cultural concerns noting that the lands from Ulupalakua to Kaupo are Native Hawaiian homelands replete with archeological sites and endangered plants used for rituals. Many (>30%) were concerned about impacts of the HGP on the life styles of the general population, in particular, on life styles of Native Hawaiians. Another 30% mentioned aesthetic impacts of HGP on pristine environments. en_US
dc.description.sponsorship USDOE en_US
dc.format.extent 43 pages en_US
dc.language.iso en-US en_US
dc.subject HGP en_US
dc.subject public input en_US
dc.subject EIS en_US
dc.subject DOE en_US
dc.subject Maui en_US
dc.subject.lcsh Hawaii Geothermal Project en_US
dc.subject.lcsh EIS en_US
dc.subject.lcsh community impacts en_US
dc.title Scoping Meeting Summary, Wailuku, Maui, March 9, 1992, 2 PM Session en_US
dc.type Report en_US
dc.type.dcmi Text en_US

Item File(s)

Files Size Format View
Maui EIS Scoping.pdf 1.332Mb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics

About