Cave
Conservationist
The
Newsletter of Cave Conservation and Management
Volume 15
No. 2
Published
by the
BLM/YATES ENERGY SETTLEMENT | ISHA (International
Subterranean Heritage Association) | PUNA Road Status | NEVERSINK MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Cave
Conservationist is the official publication of the Conservation and
Management Section of the National Speleological Society. Distribution is free
to members of the Section. Section membership costs $5 annually and should be
mailed to the Secretary. (A membership form for your convenience is included on
page 19.) Additional complimentary copies are distributed on a temporary basis
at the discretion of the Section to
POSTMASTER: Send address
changes to Evelyn Bradshaw,
SUBMISSIONS: Articles and
other Cave Conservationist correspondence should be sent to the Editor.
Submissions on computer disks should be made with 3.5"
Copyright 1997
Printed by members of the
D.C. Grotto and the Potomac Speleological Society.
Cover illustration is the
Puna Cave Area in
Visit our World Wide Web
site on the Internet at http://www.halcyon.com/samara/nssccms/.
|
NATIONAL
SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY |
|
President
and Publisher: Rob Stitt |
|
Editor
and Vice-President: Jay R. Jorden, |
|
Secretary-Treasurer:
Evelyn Bradshaw, |
|
Directors
at Large: John Hoffelt |
· BLM/YATES
ENERGY SETTLEMENT 3
· ISHA
International Subterranean Heritage Association Comments on IUS Guidelines
3
· PUNA
Road Status as of the end of 1995. 8
· NEVERSINK
MANAGEMENT PLAN 19
· Membership
Form 19
Well, it's been a busy year. Even though
this issue is dated August 1, you aren't getting it until December or later.
Most of the stuff in this issue is about stuff that took place before August 1,
and has some historical or educational value.
I've cut out a lot of stuff to make this
issue a reasonable size, particularly about the Puna situation. As of today
(November 22) everything there should be under control (at least Bill Halliday
hasn't sent me any new stuff.)
There will be two more issues coming out
with more 1996 stuff in it, possibly even along with this issue. I've just
changed jobs, cutting my commuting time in half, so I should have a bit more
time to keep this stuff coming out.
In the meantime, check out the Section
World Wide Web page at www.wingedseed.com/samara/nssccms/
From the
Cavers Digest via John Lyles
Date:
This message is from David Jagnow,
Cavers:
I just received the following news brief
from the
The Bureau of Land Management (
According to the settlement agreement,
the federal government will pay $2.2 million to Yates Energy Corporation,
establish a no-surface occupancy restriction for two-thirds of lease NM-62161
(the area within the Cave Protection Zone), and allow drilling from the two
locations identified in the Dark Canyon EIS as 1G and 2G. Any well drilled from
these locations, must be below the cave-bearing Guadalupe Reef Complex
(approximately 3,000 feet deep) before directional drilling will be allowed. A
"closed mud" system will be required in addition to some other
requirements to protect visual resources. One of the conditions of approval
specifies that a
The settlement resolves controversy of
drilling for oil and gas in
Since the drilling locations are outside
the Cave Protection Zone,
ISHA International Subterranean
Heritage Association
Comments on IUS Guidelines
Publisher's Note: The
following material was prepared by ISHA as comments on the proposed IUS
Guidelines that were published in issue 14-4 of the Cave Conservationists.
International
Non Governmental Organization
COMMENTS
ON THE
Draft
Document for
Guidelines
for Cave and Karst Protection
proposed
by the
Commission
on National Parks and Protected Areas
of
the
IUCN
The
World Conservation
PRELIMINARY
REPORT
Synthesized
and edited by
Philippe AXELL
President,
ISHA
Contributions to this
report have been made by organizations and individuals who are not members of
ISHA as well as ISHA members. Therefore the views expressed in this report do
not necessarily reflect those of ISHA.
Contributions to this
report have been made by:
G. DEBLOCK, President,
SOBERES.
R. DELFOSSE, Former
president of the Protection and Access Commission - Belgian Speleological
Union.
J. HAECK, President, Soci鴩 Royale Belge d'Etudes G鯬ogiques et Arch鯬ogiques.
L. HAESEN,
Vice-President, Belgian Speleological
D. MATTART, Soci鴩 Royale Belge d'Etudes G鯬ogiques et Arch鯬ogiques.
FEDERATION OF
V. MALTSEV, Cave and
Karst Protection in former
M. BAKALOWICZ,
C. JUBERTHIE,
A. MANGIN,
M.P. VEUILLEZ, President
- CPEPESC.
M. LAUMANNS, President,
Federation of the
H. DE SWART, President,
Speleo Nederland.
J. ORBONS, President, IUS
- Artificial Cavities Commission.
Additional data and
quotes have been extracted from documents or publications provided by:
COMMISSION OF THE
EUROPEAN
DG XII -
? Karst groundwater
protection - Final report ?, 1995
? Karst groundwater
protection - Guidelines ?, 1995
COUNCIL OF
? European
Convention on the Protection of the Archeological Heritage ?, 1992
? Convention on the
Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats ?, 1987
? Recommandations N?
36 (1992) sur la Conservation des Habitats Souterrains ?, 1992
? Les Habitats
Souterrains et leur Protection ? by Christian Juberthie, 1992
CPEPESC
Commission Permanente
d'Etude et de Protection des Eaux, du Sous-sol et des Cavernes,
? La Protection des
Anciennes Mines - Contribution ࠬa Protection du Patrimoine G鯬ogique ? by Denis
Morin, 1995
MINISTRY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT
DIREN
? Rapport sur la
Protection des Grottes et des Mines ? by Patrick Cabrol, 1989
ISHA - The International Subterranean Heritage
Association
ISHA is an international non-governmental
organization (NGO) founded in 1994. Based in
- To contribute to the emergence of a greater
understanding of our Subterranean Heritage as well as a greater
appreciation by the general public of its value, significance, riches and
fragility; in particular, through education as well as through media
attention and other communications efforts.
- To complete a "status report" of
our global Subterranean Heritage, with the aim of creating a basis for
determining the requirements of a sensible and sustainable policy for the
conservation and harmonious development of this patrimony.
- To contribute to the establishment and/or
the harmonization of recommendations, directives, treaties, conventions,
and laws - on the international, national, and regional levels - that are
aimed at conserving the integrity of our global Subterranean Heritage and
regulating its visitation, development and exploitation through
responsible, consistent and sustainable management.
OBJECT OF THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT
The Working Group on Cave and Karst
Protection of the IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA)
has released in October 1995 a draft document called "Guidelines for Caves
and Karst Protection ".
This document has been released for comments
by all organizations or individuals concerned. The deadline for major comments
is
It is the first time that IUCN publishes
a Subterranean Heritage oriented document and this is good news for the
conservation of the Subterranean Heritage. The guidelines could create the
basis for a global conservation policy for the Subterranean Heritage all over
the world.
At ISHA, we think this is a major step in
the development of our objectives and welcome this excellent work made by the
working group during the past four years. The importance and the potential
impact of the final text of these guidelines implies that it should be based on
the broadest consensus amongst all parties concerned by the Subterranean
Heritage.
This is why ISHA is addressing this
preliminary report to the Working Group on Cave and Karst Protection
summarizing comments and suggestions not only from its members but also from
other concerned organizations around the world.
Due to the very short deadline, it has
not been possible to collect the comments from all organizations and
individuals contacted by ISHA before
This first preliminary report is
summarized from documents and comments received by ISHA prior to
Comments on the CNPPA Working Group for
Cave and Karst Protection.
- The draft document was prepared by a working group of
23 people, few of which are specialists in karstology. There are only 3
Europeans (2 British and one Slovene) and two North-Americans amongst the
working group while these two continents or sub-continents represent the
largest speleological community in the world (both in terms of scientific
researchers and sport cavers).
- Amongst the working group, it appears that
representatives of countries such as
- Conservation problems related to human visiting of
caves, or surface land management are very different in
- Karst groundwater supply protection in densely
populated
- It is felt that the CNPPA should have contacted the
numerous scientific institutions and organizations concerned with cave and
karst conservation - other than CNPPA members - in order to obtain the
latest scientific information and data on the subject, prior to the writing
of the draft guidelines. This can be done via the IUS - International
Union of Speleology.
- It is felt that the CNPPA working group should have
consulted the existing documents on the topic (i.e.: the European Union -
Table 1 (source:
|
COUNTRY |
PERCENT of
karst water in total water supply |
|
|
50 |
|
|
31 (46 of
groundwater) |
|
|
36 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
6,3 |
|
|
2,8 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
23 of groundwater |
|
|
4 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
50 |
|
|
12,5 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
1,5 |
|
|
20 |
General comments on the guidelines.
- The publication by IUCN/CNPPA of the Guidelines for
Cave and Karst Protection is welcomed by all the people and organizations
who have contributed to this report. It is considered as a major step
forward in the efforts for a better understanding and the conservation of
the subterranean heritage.
- The fact that surface land management is included as
part of the protection scheme is considered as a very positive approach to
subterranean heritage and resources management and conservation.
- In general, it is not the content of the guidelines
(with one or two exceptions) that is discussed but the main structure. The
draft text does not include a hierarchical structure allowing to establish
priorities and/or clearly identify actors, problems and remedies.
- The field of application of the
guidelines is not clear. Are ? caves ? to be considered only as
karstic caves or does it apply to any natural or artificial cavity?
- The guidelines are too vague, too
general. Some guidelines are applicable to other environments.
- There is no distinction between
patrimonial values (archeology, mineralogy, biodiversity, etc...) and
resources values (water supply, etc...).
- The patrimonial values are
under-considered as compared to resources values.
- The threats to caves and karst (chapt.
- Some guidelines are too dogmatic (i.e.: 12, 29, etc...)
and may result in wrong interpretation.
- The ? actors ? in caves and karst management
are not identified although referred to in many of the guidelines.
Comments on Artificial Cavities.
- The "artificial" subterranean heritage is not
considered in the document (man-made galleries, mines, underground
quarries, etc. often representing subterranean habitats for bats or other
lifeforms or scientific interest for geologists, paleontologists,
archeologists, etc.). The cultural value of troglodyte dwellings,
subterranean towns but also of very ancient mines and quarries cannot be
separated from a global conservation policy of the Subterranean Heritage.
This artificial subterranean heritage is often linked closely to
underground waters (phreatic layers, underground reservoirs or streams,
etc.) used for drinking water supply near highly populated areas.
- Generally speaking, old mines are more often threatened
than natural caves. They are also usually located in more densely
populated areas, therefore preventing any protected area system to be
installed. A special attention should be given to the protection of this
particular type of cavities.
- Artificial cavities can be found not just in Karst
areas, but also far outside them.
- Mineral neoformations (young speleothems), sometimes
exceptional, are often found in artificial cavities.
- Artificial cavities conservation can often be related
to archeological sites protection laws and conventions. It should
therefore be recommended that such legal texts be used for the
conservation of artificial cavities where applicable.
Comments on subterranean biology.
- The scientific interest of the biological aspect of
caves protection is not really indicated in the draft text.
- Subterranean biology and biodiversity is not
sufficiently mentioned in the draft guidelines. The text does not consider
the guidelines published by the Council of Europe in the Convention on the
Conservation of European Subterranean Wildlife Habitats (1992).
- It is not clear if the CNPPA guidelines cover all
subterranean wildlife habitats - including non karstic and artificial
cavities -, or exclusively karstic cavities.
- It is not possible to dissociate karstic and
non-karstic subterranean habitats in a protection guidelines text.
Comments on non-karstic cavities.
- Non-karstic natural cavities (lava tubes, ice caves,
seashore caves, etc.), although mentioned in the document's comments, are
not accounted for in the guidelines.
- This patrimony also represents essential natural
values, both for scenic and scientific interest (see above comments on
subterranean habitats). Guidelines for the conservation of non-karstic
cavities should be added to the IUCN guidelines or included in further
guidelines.
Comments on cave and karst management.
- In section V, Management at the regional and site
level, there is no guideline on WHO should manage protected karstic areas.
This could be interpreted as if only official authorities or owners are
qualified for the management of the subterranean heritage. This could also
be interpreted as if all human (caving and research) activities should be
avoided.
- Due to the complex structure of karst areas and aware
of the fact that most of the subterranean interchanges of liquid and
gaseous substances and most of the speleological phenomena are still not
well known to man, a serious, responsible and continuous research in karst
areas both in scientific and in physical survey work should be encouraged.
- The absence of representatives of national, regional or
local speleological and scientific organizations in the management of
karstic or subterranean sites would be most damaging to the effort made by
the speleological and the scientific community to the discovery, the
better understanding and the conservation of our subterranean heritage.
- Management at national or regional level should not be
attributed to a single organization or authority, but rather include
representatives of all parties concerned, such as speleological
organizations, scientific institutions, show caves associations and
concerned environmental authorities and/or organizations.
- The creation of a data base listing cave and karst
areas included within protected areas and also identifying unprotected
areas which deserve recognition is very favorably received by all parties
concerned. However, it is felt that such data base should include the
entire subterranean heritage (karstic and non-karstic, natural and
cultural).
NOTE: One of the 3 main objectives of
ISHA is the establishment of a global status report of the world's subterranean
heritage in such a data base. This project is currently under development and a
partnership will be proposed in the near future to IUCN, IUS,
- Research and monitoring centers for the natural
subterranean heritage should be created on a sub-continental level in all
major karstic areas of the world to collect and pre-process data in their
area. Such centers should be located preferably within existing scientific
structures already engaged in the study of the subterranean environment.
(i.e.: Subterranean Laboratory of Moulis - France, E. Racovitza Institute
in Romania, Karst Research Institute in Postojna -
- The research and monitoring centers would be
responsible not only for providing data to the data base, but also to
conduct research tasks as well as expertise in their local areas for the
conservation and management of karstic areas.
- The conservation of the subterranean cultural heritage
may require different policies from the natural heritage (i.e.: the
preservation of the karstification process may not be advisable for the
conservation of prehistoric cave paintings). A specific research and
monitoring center should be established for the conservation and study of
prehistoric caves environment due to the special aspect of this world
heritage.
- A complete environmental impact study should be
performed prior to any kind of cave fitting for tourism or any extension
of existing show cave. This study should include the eventual protection
of certain sectors at site level. Continuous monitoring of the cave
environment during the exploitation should be performed.
- This kind of impact study could be conducted or
supervised by the local research and monitoring center mentioned above.
- A social and economical study should also be conducted
prior to the opening of any new show cave to avoid a non sustainable
development of karstic areas in the tourism sector.
- The acceptance and observance of regulations is
generally much easier when the public understands the reasons for the
various measures. Educational campaigns explaining the value of the
subterranean heritage may greatly enhance public awareness.
- Educational training for show caves personnel,
educators, nature tour operators, etc... may be achieved by special
courses, workshops and joint field trips.
- Campaigns organized at an international and national
level may be complemented with activities at the local council or
community level. Distribution of educational videos, leaflets and posters
will also contribute towards creating an awareness in the long term. This
could perhaps be achieved through an international agreement to a year
dedicated to the conservation of the subterranean heritage and resources,
especially for those countries or regions where the understanding of
patrimonial and environmental issues by the general public is poor.
The current deadline is not sufficient to
contact all organizations or specialists concerned by the conservation of the
subterranean heritage in order to make significant changes to the draft
guidelines.
The importance of the subterranean
heritage and resources extends beyond the notion of protected areas as it
implies economical, social, cultural and environmental values that have not yet
raised international attention.
It would therefore be advisable that the
publication of international guidelines by a body such as IUCN be as complete
as possible, and not limited to certain aspects of karstic areas only, in order
to provide international, regional and national authorities with a single clear
text applicable to all aspects of the subterranean heritage and resources.
The notion of sustainable management and
conservation of the subterranean heritage and resources is closely linked to
other major issues such as scientific research, biodiversity, cultural heritage
or water supply. It also implies cultural, educational, social and economical
human activities.
It has been widely suggested that the
CNPPA/IUCN considers delaying the publication of the guidelines until a broader
consultation with other parties concerned is achieved by the extension of the
working group to non CNPPA members. This extension of the working group could
be organized by the different Commissions of the International Union of
Speleology (IUS) and by the International Subterranean Heritage Association
(ISHA) in cooperation with the CNPPA.
The results of the additional work
performed by this extended working group could be presented for comments at the
International Congress of Speleology to be held in
Should the above
suggestion be impossible, the following comments have been suggested:
- Consider the above comments, as well as other comments
received, for changes in the next draft guidelines.
- Add to the guidelines that they do not apply to
artificial cavities and non-karstic cavities.
- Add to the guidelines that they do not apply to
subterranean wildlife and habitats.
- Add to the guidelines that they do not apply to caves
of cultural and archeological value.
It has also been suggested that IUCN
considers the publication of separated guidelines on the 3 following topics:
- artificial cavities and non-karstic cavities,
- subterranean wildlife and habitats,
- cultural and archeological subterranean heritage (in
conjunction with UNESCO).
of
the
National Speleological Society
|
WILLIAM
R. HALLIDAY |
P.0. 90x 1525 |
|
Chairman |
|
Hon. Stephen Yamashiro
Office of the Mayor
Re: Draft Environmental
Dear Mayor Yamashiro:
This letter is written after review of
the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Puna Emergency Access Road, and
supersedes previous correspondence about this proposed road.
As Chairman of the Hawaii Speleological
Survey of the National Speleological Society, I commend you, your County staff,
and your consultant Dr. Ron Terry, for formulating and including plans to
protect significant caves crossed by this road.
In my opinion, the details specified in
this Draft Environmental Assessment provide adequate protection for these
caves. From the speleological standpoint, no Environmental Impact Statement is
needed for it. I am confident that other leading vulcanospeleologists will join
me in this conclusion. The Hawaii Speleological Survey thus anticipates and
concurs in your preparation of a Negative Declaration/Final Environmental
Assessment containing these details.
In this Draft Environmental Assessment I
noticed several errors or misunderstandings about peripheral matters which
should be corrected in the final document. These are specified in the attached
appendix. Primarily these concern differentiation between lava tubes and lava
tube caves, with misunderstandings about the number and size of caves in Puna
and the large number of them which are not burial caves, and about legal
protection for lava tube caves in
Again our commendation and thanks for
developing this acceptable method of protecting these world?class caves without
impeding the road project.
Sincerely yours,
William R. Halliday, Chairman
cc: HSS ExCom and recipients of previous
correspondence
1) Differentiation of caves from lava
tubes.
The Draft EA (and also Mr. Norman
Olesen's letter to the President of the National Speleological Society dated 26
December 1995, in the Appendix of the Draft EA) suffers from repeated confusion
between lava tubes and lava tube caves. Several sections need to be rewritten,
and correct terms need to be substituted in several places.
In the last paragraph on page 15, it is
notably incorrect to assert "...in all probability dozens of other caves,
mostly modest in dimension, underlie the area, as they do virtually all
pahoehoe covered areas of the
Caves are defined as natural
underground spaces, large enough for human entry, and with some
portion in essentially total darkness. Some open, roofed lava tubes are
caves, others are too small or too short. As indicated below, in
On page 12, paragraph 1, the first two
sentences are basically correct although the second sentence specifies only one
of several mechanisms for the formation of lava tubes. The third sentence is
incorrect, conflicting with the second sentence. It could be corrected by
substituting:
...an open segment of
a roofed lava tube is often left?
The fourth sentence of this paragraph is
especially erroneous. Almost no open, roofed lava tubes less than 12 inches in
diameter qualify as caves. In fact, very few open, roofed lava tubes less than
3 or 4 feet in diameter qualify as caves in this area.
The remainder of this paragraph is
accurate but the last sentence is irrelevant and misleading. It is quite true
that there are "many thousands of lava tubes" in
To differentiate
correctly between lava tubes and lava tube caves, the phrases tube(s)
and lava tube(s) should be changed to lava tube cave(s) or cave(s)
in the following locations:
page 12, line 3 (twice)
page 13, lines 1, 2, 4,
7, 7?8, 10, 16, 29 (twice), 30 and last
page 14, lines 5, 6, 13,
20, 21?22, 23. (Note: the term lava tube is correct in line 1. Many burials are
understood to be in lava tubes which are not caves.)
page 15, lines 28, 29,
30, 33, 35
page 16, lines 5, 6, 10,
21, 24, 25, 31
page 17, lines 1, 5, 7,
17, 18, 20
page 20, lines 16, 25
page 21, line 10
page 31, lines 25, 27,
28, 30
page 32, line 3.
2) Legal protection for Hawaiian caves.
It is incorrect to say (page 17):
"The caves do not enjoy legal protection of any sort within this
area."
The Hawaii State Environmental Policy
(Chapter 344, section 3, (1) provides that it shall be the policy of the state
to conserve the natural resources, so that land, water, mineral, visual, air
and other natural resources are protected by...preserving or augmenting natural
resources,
of which caves are an example (page 13 of
this Draft EA and the cited Community Management Associates, Inc., 1995). As
such, caves and sections of caves are natural resources in their own right and
some contain other natural resources.
Caves subject to the Environmental
Assessment process are protected under Title 11 Ch. 200 Subch. 5, section 12(b)
(1) and sometimes (2) and (7)?(11). This statement on page 17 needs to be
corrected accordingly. It should be noted that a similar misstatement appears
in the letter dated
Especially considering the dreadful past
record of devastation of caves and parts of caves throughout Hawaii County
(such as Jaggars Cave in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Eldon English Cave in
Puna, Roadcut Cave in Kau, once?celebrated Laniakea Cave in Kailua?Kona, and
even parts of Kaumana Cave County Park in the suburbs of Hilo, it would be very
inappropriate for the final document to imply in any way that Hawaii County has
so many caves that the cited state policy should be ignored.
Further, the details of this Draft EA
demonstrate that
In a similar vein, a section on
Mitigation Measures for Geological Impacts should parallel the similar section
for biological impacts. It should read:
Every effort will be made to avoid
collapsing major lava tube caves. If a section of a lava tube cave with
potential geologic value must be collapsed, a culvert allowing passage for
geologists and other scientists will be emplaced.
This would be in conformity with the
first indented subparagraph on page 15.
3) Misunderstandings about troglobites.
Hawaiian troglobites inhabit extensive
subterranean interstitial spaces in addition to caves and smaller lava tubes,
and the final document should reflect this.
Further, some caves beneath cultivated
areas and even beneath bare pahoehoe lava contain significant ecosystems.
Others do not. Generalizations in the final document should not be limited to
caves beneath ohia forests (as is the case in this Draft EA).
On page 13, line 3 (Biology section)
should be corrected to read approximately:
' ...make their home in open
roofed tubes and interstitial spaces
In the next line, the word cave
should be deleted in two places.
Also on page 13, the sentence regarding
preservation of natural vegetation should read:
...vegetation above some
cave ecosystems....
On page 16, line 31 should read:
...may also affect subterranean
fauna..
On page 14, line 13, will
should be changed to may, and many should be changed to some.
(Note: many Hawaiian lava tube caves have few or no vulnerable geological
features or biology.)
On page 16, regarding
"Impacts to Biology", it should be mentioned that increasing the
width and/or thickness of pavement tends to dehydrate underlying cave
environments and thus may subdivide sparse populations of subterranean fauna.
In line 3, page 17, the
word new should be added before the word entrance, and in the
previous line, the word unusual should be substituted for potential.
(Note: virtually every Puna lava tube cave has potential biological value, but
most contain only common troglobites. Also the entrance to be collapsed
according to the present wording is likely to be on private property, yards to
miles distant.)
4) Impacts to Geological Resources
Mitigation Measures.
On pages 15, 16, and 17 are several
misunderstandings about occurrences of "archaeological, historical, or
burial site findings" in caves in this area, about the need for mitigation
measures for geological impacts, and about "the traditional Hawaiian
attitude."
Roughly 83% of the near?100 Puna caves
known to the Hawaii Speleological Survey records are NOT burial caves. Taken in
40?foot increments (the width of the proposed road in Hawaiian Acres
Subdivision), approximately 99% of the lengths of known Puna caves have no
burial sites, nor archaeological or historical findings. The likelihood of such
"findings" in a previously unknown length of cave opened by road
excavation here obviously is even less.
The state of
Whenever the Contractor encounters
possible archaeological, historical, or burial site findings, the Contractor
shall immediately suspend the operation and inform the Engineer verbally and
follow up with a written letter. The Engineer will contact the Department of
Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) and other agencies to evaluate such findings
and decide the course of action. The contractor shall not resume operations
suspended without the prior written acceptance of the Engineer...The
archaeologist will decide the limits of the site. Also the Archaeologist will
decide, with the Engineer, the best means for protecting the site from further
disturbances which requires further investigation of salvage as determined by
the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer). Protection may include
barricades, roping off, temporary fencing, or other means.
-Dept. of Transportation, 1996. Notice of
Determination, Negative Declaration for the proposed Keaau?
As shown above in this Appendix,
statistically it is extremely unlikely that such provisions would be applicable
to the proposed road. Except as otherwise noted, the H.S.S. however sees only
minor problems with the mitigation measures on pages 17 and 31; it is
commendable for the County to consult with DLNR even when it is not required to
do so. In fact, the H.S.S. is prepared to offer field assistance to DLNR, when
desired, so that DLNR can make more extensive investigations than otherwise
might be possible. Conversely, the presence of significant geological resources
in such caves is more probable than not. The H.S.S. usually is prepared to
inventory such resources and advise on them, no short notice. We suggest that
such inventories and guidance be included as Mitigation Measures for Geological
Impacts. This would obviate any question of destruction of uninventoried
geological resources.
Unfortunately, the last sentence in
"Impacts to Geological Resources" is unintelligible and apparently
incorrect. It should be rewritten, reflecting the new data in this Appendix and
Dr. Stephan Kempe's correction of the misapprehension that only "smaller
caves" are likely to be encountered during excavation.
Regarding "traditional Hawaiian
attitudes", the statement on line 2 of page 14 needs to be rewritten.
Extensive documentation exists concerning the variations in traditional
Hawaiian attitudes toward burials. These ranged from those cited in this Draft
EA to especially deplorable theft of bones for the purpose of obtaining the
mana which accompanied them, or, alternately, to deliberately desecrate the
remains of one's enemies. Even today, the kupuna advising Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park does not agree within itself on whether Park officials should
administratively exclude haoles from burial caves in that Park. The final
document should not imply County favoritism toward any faction of Native
Hawaiians until and unless the County Council takes formal action or according
to law.
5) General corrections and
clarifications.
- addition of missing reference (cited on page 7:
Trusdell and
- correction of name of Lower U`
- For uniformity, references to the State Historic
Preservation Division (SHPD) should he changed to DLNR.
- The sanctity of burial areas is not a "resource
value" as asserted in paragraph 2 of page 17, and a proper term
should he used.
Also in the previous line, the word some should replace the word many, thus conforming with the indented paragraph at the top of page 14. - Regarding use of the term "pseudo stalactite"
on page 14, this term is not used in the mainstreams of volcanology nor
speleology. It is not comprehensible in the context of this Draft EA.
Either its meaning should be explained, or (preferably) it should be
replaced by a standard term such as those in Charles V. Larson's
Illustrated Glossary of Vulcanospeleoloqy.
- Squeezeups (page 14, line 11) are among the least
vulnerable of cave features, and are uncommon in caves in this area. A
commoner and/or more vulnerable type of feature (such as lava stalagmites)
should be cited instead.
- Line 5 of page 14's next?to?the?last paragraph has an
extra be. It should be deleted, to read:
...excavation will not be necessary...
(3)
District: Puna
Applicant:
Office of the
Mayor
Contact: Norman Oleson (961~565)
Accepting Authority:
Office of the Mayor
Contact: Norman Olesen (961?8565)
Consultant: Ron Terry, Ph.D. (982?5831)
Public Comment Deadline:
Status: DEA First Notice, pending public
comment. Address comments to the applicant with copies to the consultant and
OEQC.
The
The primary purpose of the project is to
provide a paved road connecting Highway 130 and Highway 11 in order to improve
Police Department, Fire Department, and ambulance services. It would also
provide a bypass in case of accidents or Civil Defense emergencies that closed
Highway 130 between Ainaloa and Keaau. Especially useful would be the ability
of Hawaiian Acres residents who are prevented by flooding along the subdivision
roads that connect to Highway 11 to exit via
Because the proposed project crosses
essentially perpendicular to the gradient of an extensive field of pahoehoe
lava known as the `Ai La`au Flows, many lava tubes are crossed. These include
several named tubes with impressive diameters and lengths, including Kazumura,
Keala and U`
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
PUNA
DISTRICT,
APPLICANT:
CONSULTANTS:
Ron Terry Ph.D.,
APPROVING AGENCY:
Office of the Mayor,
CLASS OF ACTION:
Use of County funds
This document is prepared
pursuant to the Hawaii Environmental protection Act, Chapter 343, Hawaii
Revised Statutes (
The
The route begins at the junction of Old
Volcano Trail (a County road) and 8 Road near Kurtistown in Hawaiian Acres;
then proceeds southeast 0.5 miles along 8 Road to F Road, northeast 0.3 miles
along F Road to 9 Road, southeast 0.50 miles along 9 Road to parcel 1?6?45:073
(hereafter referred to as the connector lot); northeast 0.3 miles across the
connector lot to Ainaloa Blvd.; and then northeast 3.1 miles along Ainaloa
Blvd. to its junction with Highway 130 (all distances approximate) (Fig. l).
The total length of roadway is approximately 8.7 miles.
The County will assume ownership and
responsibility for the entire right?of way associated with each road. which has
a width of 60 feet in Ainaloa and 40 feet in Hawaiian acres.
1.2 Purpose and Objectives of Project
The primary purpose of the project is to
provide a paved road connecting Highway 130 and Highway 11 in order to improve
Police Department, Fire Department, and ambulance services. It would also
provide a bypass in case of accidents or Civil Defense emergencies that closed
Highway 130 between Ainaloa and Keaau. Especially useful would be the ability
of Hawaiian Acres residents who are prevented by flooding aeolian the
subdivision roads that connect to Highway 11 to exit via
The project proposal developed as a
combination of several ideas generated within the Hawaii County Fire
Department, the Office of the Mayor, and the Hawaiian Acres and Ainaloa
Community Associations.
The dedication of the road (albeit to
emergency standards only) would enable future capacity and safety improvements
to be paid for with fuel tax maintenance funds.
Except for the connector lot mentioned
above (a distance of approximately 1,800 feet), the road already exists. The
project would widen, pave and otherwise improve the road as appropriate to meet
the following standards
- Two paved 8?foot travel lanes. with center stripe,
- Two paved 2?foot shoulders, striped for separation from
travel lanes;
- 2?inch AC pavement;
- Sight distance appropriate to 25
All surfacing on the existing roads would
be done over compacted base course that was installed about 30 years ago and
has become overgrown from lack of maintenance. The new section on the connector
lot would require grading and a base course in addition to paving. Because this
section is an entirely new road. slightly higher standards requiring 20 feet of
paved lanes, 6?foot shoulders, and 2?inch AC pavement over 4 inches of base
course with 6 inches of sub?base (if necessary) will be applied.
Most road work would take place in
Hawaiian Acres and in the connector lot, because
Several sections of the road require
safety modifications in order to meet minimum sight distance safety
requirements. Because the roads are all straight, no adjustment of horizontal
alignment is necessary. Blind hills impair sight distance in several locations.
which will be improved mostly through placement of fill. A very limited area of
cutting is required.
The road would have a posted speed limit
of 25
A County Capital Improvement Fund of
$1,000,000 has been authorized to bring the route up to County emergency
standards. These funds can only be applied after the County acquires ownership
of the road.
Several alternatives to the proposed
project have also been examined, as required by sound planning principles and
State law. This section briefly describes the Alternatives considered. Section
2 contrasts the environmental impacts of the Alternative retained for further
consideration with the impacts of the proposed project where they differ.
The roads would remain in private hands
under the No?Action Alternative. No connection between Hawaiian Acres and
Ainaloa would be built. County emergency services would remain difficult to
provide in the area, and traffic attempting to exit Hawaiian Acres during
floods would, as now, be obliged to cross the most flood?prone roads. No County
funds would be expended, and no long term commitment to maintaining roads in
the area would be incurred. It is reasonable to expect, however, that the
project would eventually proceed in some form through private funding.
1.4.2 Alternatives Evaluated and Dismissed From Further
Consideration
Several approaches to providing emergency
access were considered but withdrawn because of feasibility or cost
considerations. Alternate routes were initially evaluated, including the
following:
- Substituting
- Utilizing 9 Road for a longer segment of the route;
- Extending the route along 8 Road to
- Eliminating the jog down
Although each of these routes had some
advantages, all were estimated to cost significantly more because of the need
to create and/or upgrade longer segments of roadway. The length of such
segments varied from a minimum of 0.35 miles under D and a maximum of 3.05
miles under A. The additional costs associated with these routes were not
precisely calculated but were estimated to equal or substantially exceed
$300,000. It is relevant to note that none of the dismissed alternative routes
would avoid any of the basic environmental impacts associated with the proposed
project
Also considered was the possibility of
providing a County road in compliance with conventional road standards for lane
and shoulder widths; curbs, gutters and sidewalks; and drainage structures.
Cost estimates for this level of roadway exceeded $17 million, which was far in
excess of the County's ability to provide assistance. This design would have
better accommodated high levels of traffic, although it also would have
encouraged greater levels of traffic (see Section 2.4.1).
Finally, delaying action on the project
was considered. This was rejected because of the risk of relying on a similar
County Council appropriation in the future and the lack of obvious advantages.
The roads in each subdivision comprise
one
1.6 Land Use Designation and Controls
The route passes through areas within the
State Land Use Agricultural District. Zoning in Ainaloa is A?la (Agriculture 1
acre) with some Open zoning, and in Hawaiian Acres is A3a (Agriculture 3 acre)
with some A?5a (Agriculture 5 acres). Roads are permitted uses within these
Land Use Districts and zoning classifications.
1.7 Agency public Consultation
As part of the consultation process for
this Environmental Assessment (EA), the following agencies and organizations
were contacted:
|
County: |
|
|
Planning
Department |
Department of
Public Works |
|
County Council |
Fire
Department |
|
Police
Department |
Civil Defense
Agency |
|
State: |
|
|
Historic
Preservation Division |
Highways
Division |
|
Federal: |
|
|
Fish and
Wildlife Service |
Geological
Survey |
|
Private: |
|
|
Ainaloa
Community Assoc. |
Hawaiian Acres
Community Assoc. |
|
|
Sierra Club |
Copies of replies from those agencies and
organizations with substantive comments are provided as Appendix 1 (and
Appendix 2 for communications related to caves). Comments are discussed in the
appropriate sections of the Environmental Assessment.
Two public meetings were held
specifically to gather comments and information for this EA. These occurred in
Ainaloa and Hawaiian Acres on January 10 and 11, 1996, respectively. Appendix 3
contains the sign?in sheets from these meetings along with a joint summary of
concerns and questions that arose at the matinees. Input from these meetings is
also discussed in the appropriate sections of the text.
Part 2: Environmental Setting, Impacts
and Proposed Mitigation Measures
2.1 Basic Geographic Setting (omitted)
2.2.2 Lava Flow and Earthquake Hazards (omitted)
2.2.3 Flora, Fauna and Ecosystems (omitted)
2.2.4 Air Quality Noise and Scenic Resources
Air pollution in the area is minimal,
although air quality is subject to periodic deterioration due to volcanic
emissions ("vog") during southerly winds. Ambient noise is usually
low., in this rural area. Construction and agricultural activity may raise
local noise to high levels for periods of hours to days. The scenery varies
from suburban to rural agricultural to semi?wilderness .
Road paving and other road work will
produce localized air pollution through fugitive dust and exhaust from
construction vehicles. Because of the relatively sparse settlement and the
dispersive effects of wind, these effects are expected to be minor.
The County should restrict construction
activity in the easement to daylight hours to the greatest extent feasible.
Professional traffic control should be utilized as necessary. Dust and noise
control should be implemented during construction. Best management practices
should be observed to control excess runoff during construction.
Soon after the County officials
publicized the project, they began to hear concerns about impacts to lava tube
caves. Members of the Hawaii Speleological Survey (HSS), including its
chairman, Dr. William Halliday, met with a representative of the Mayor s Office
to supply information on cave resources, to urge careful examination of impacts
and to suggest mitigation measures.
Dissatisfied with what they perceived as
inadequate consideration of its viewpoint, the HSS alerted individuals and
organizations throughout the world. As a result, the County has received a
large file of correspondence on the caves, which is reproduced in this EA as
Appendix 2. The ensuing dialogue between the
Lava tubes are an integral and common
element of extrusive volcanic landscapes in shield volcanoes such as
Because the proposed project crosses
essentially perpendicular to the gradient of an extensive field of pahoehoe
lava flows known as the `Ai La`au Flows (ca. 340 years B.P. see Section 2.1),
many lava tubes are crossed. These include several named tubes with impressive
diameters and lengths, including Kazumura, Keala and U`
For this EA, the HSS provided information
on the location and characteristics of the following caves: Kazumura, Keala,
Fern's. Pirate's, D?Road complex, and Uilani. The author of this EA and
representatives of the Hawaii County Planning Department and the Department of
Public Works (
NOTE: No map of caves is provided in the
EA because of mutual agreement among the consulted parties (including the State
Historic Preservation Division and the
Lava tubes are valuable resources in
several distinct ways:
Geology. The morphology and features of lava tubes provide
important information on the mechanics and histories of eruptions. Apart from
their scientific value, excellent examples of lava tubes may also be worthy of
preservation for their geologic and educational interest to the general public.
Recreation. A growing number of cave enthusiasts
with a variety of interests are known to be exploring lava tubes in
Biology. Rare communities of specialized invertebrates. many unique
to
Species Diversity. Howarth noted that species diversity
within lava tubes in
Hawaiian Culture. Native Hawaiians utilized caves for a
variety of activities, including shelter, water collection facilities, shrines,
and work areas. Evidence of this use persists in many sites. Lava tubes served
for centuries as burial sites for Native Hawaiians. Hundreds of burials have
been recorded within lava tubes on the
These resource values may conflict. Any
visitation (even by careful scientists) may damage delicate cave features such
as pseudo?stalactites and squeeze?ups, and may also damage cave organisms or
habitat. Heavy use by recreational visitors (however sensitive) to caves will
take a toll on the geological features and biology of many lava tubes. Most
disturbing is the conflict between the wishes of many Native Hawaiians to
exclude most visitation and the growing demand of recreational users to explore
more and more caves on a more frequent basis. According to State Historic
Preservation Officer Don Hibbard in his
"...[you] note that scientific and
other visitors to these caves contribute considerable sums to the economy of
Locations and Nature of Impacts
After a thorough, section?by?section
review of the known cave locations and the type of construction activities
planned above them, there is a consensus that the structural effects on all but
U`ilani and Pirate's Cave will be minimal. A reconnaissance of the proposed
route by the Deputy Director of the Hawaii County Department of Public Works
has determined that cutting or excavation will be not be necessary in the areas
of Hawaiian Acres over Keala, Kazumura. Fern's or the D?Road caves, a concern
stated repeatedly in HSS communications. This means that fill emplacement and
paving will be the only modification of the surface, which most agree should
strengthen, not weaken, the caves.
One cave that may require collapse is
Pirate's Cave, a low, broad cave that very shallowly underlies one of the
project roads. In a letter of December 1995, Dr. Halliday expressed the opinion
that Pirate's Cave was of minor importance and could be collapsed if necessary
without objection by HSS (see Appendix 2).
In the Ainaloa Portion of the project,
"One obvious option for protecting
vehicular traffic on
In the connector link between
"The planned extension itself is in
all probability free of major caves because it follows the northern edge of the
Ainaloa Flow..."
In addition to known caves, in all
probability dozens of other caves, mostly modest in dimension, underlie the
area, as they do virtually all pahoehoe?covered areas of the
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts to Geological Resources: The loss of natural features or
scientific value would be negligible. The small segments of U`ilani and
Pirate's Caves that may be affected are already well documented and have been
adversely modified by placement of fill, trash, etc. Even considering the
potential to encounter smaller lava tubes in the very limited sections
contemplated for excavation, less than 0.001 percent of the mapped length of
lava tubes in this section of Puna would be disturbed.
Mitigation Measures for Geological
Impacts. None proposed.
Impacts Related to Exposure to Hazards:
During road construction, Pirate's Cave and any other lava tubes encountered
near the surface will be evaluated on a case?by?case basis to determine whether
collapse, fill or other structural modification is required. U`
Mitigation Measures for Exposure to
Hazards. U`
Impacts to Recreation: Other than the
section of Pirate's Cave under the roadway, which is occasionally used by
children, no loss of recreational cave areas would occur. It should be noted
that all current recreation takes place on private lands often without owner's
permission, and is not sanctioned by the County or community associations.
Mitigation Measures for Impacts to
Recreation: None are proposed.
Impacts to Biology: The construction of a
road above a lava tube may also affect cave fauna by removing vegetation whose
roots penetrate into the tube to provide nutrients, altering the flow of water
and introducing pollutants. Because a road already exists above all but 0.31
miles of the proposed route, these effects will be negligible. If a section of
a cave is collapsed, the potential for alien species introductions increases,
and airflow between segments may be lost.
Mitigation Measures for Impacts to
Biology: If a section of a lava tube with potential biological value must be
collapsed, a culvert allowing airflow passage will be emplaced and the entrance
sealed to prevent alien species introduction.
Impacts to Hawaiian Culture: The
principal Hawaiian cultural issue pertains to archaeological features found
within the lava tubes, especially those related to burials. As stated before,
many native Hawaiians feel that the sanctity of burial areas is violated by
visitation of lava tubes. In this sense, the greatest impact on this resource
value has been the enthusiasm of those who seek to explore caves.
Mitigation for Impacts to Hawaiian
Culture: If any caves are unearthed during construction, the
Scale and Significance of Impacts
It is possible that by the end of the
proposed project, no lava tubes will have been collapsed and physical effects
on lava tubes will have been essentially zero. However, as stated above, it may
be necessary for road safety to collapse, fill or place supporting structures
within small portions of U`ilani Cave, Pirate's Cave, and smaller tubes that
may be encountered along the route
Such modifications would not represent a
significant impact as defined in Chapter 343.
It should be noted that the entire region
surrounding the proposed project is an agricultural subdivision, crisscrossed
by hundreds of miles of roads and driveways and occupied by hundreds of homes.
The caves do not enjoy legal protection of any sort within this area, and may
be legally collapsed or used for a variety of purposes such as depositing yard
wastes or storage. Although the County, State and federal governments do not authorize
such uses, they have no authority to prevent them. Apart from these activities,
lot grading associated with home construction and agriculture is substantial
and will only grow in scale. According to one estimate, over 585 private
landholdings exist over
[pages 18-19 have been omitted]
The following mitigation measures are
proposed:
- Monitoring of the crime rate within the subdivisions by
Keaau Police in order to determine whether an increase ensues after road
construction. The Hawaii County Police Department has an expressed a
willingness to keep these statistics. If justified, additional police
patrols should be implemented
- Increased reliance and participation in Neighborhood
Watch programs
The No?Action alternative would reduce
access for criminals but also for police.
2.3.2 Archaeology and Historic Sites
Recent inventory surveys have yielded
abundant physical evidence that pre?Contact and early post?Contact Hawaiians
used inland Puna extensively for habitation, gathering, temporary shelters,
burials and other purposes. The rain forest environment provided plant and
animal material for cordage, feather work, medicine, dyes and ceremonial items.
In addition, lava tubes were also used for various purposes, especially burial,
which have in some cases left behind sites of historic and/or cultural
significance. The fact that the proposed route is located on the Ainaloa lava
flow, only 340 years in age, reduces but does not eliminate the possibility
that substantial historic sites may exist in Hawaiian A or Ainaloa.
Although historic sites may be present in
the region traversed by the road. they are not expected on or near the road
itself, because the entire route (except the connector lot) bulldozed to a
width of 40?60 feet during the creation of the subdivision. The road has since
experienced regular maintenance and brush clearing and is highly unlikely to
contain any traces of its original surface or immediate subsurface. No known
lava tube sections with the potential to be impacted by the project are known
to contain burials or other historic features, as discussed in Section 2.2.5
above.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The County of Hawaii has coordinated with
the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) to determine the appropriate
level of archaeological research. The consultation has not yet determined the
research/mitigation program. At this point, the County proposes the following:
?[pages 22-29 omitted, not relevant to
cave resources]
PART 3: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Listed below are impacts and proposed
mitigation measures for categories in which impacts are apparent. Refer to Part
2 for detailed discussions.
Construction Impact: Short term Impacts will result from land
clearing and construction activities. The impacts will consist of temporary
noise. dust and exhaust from machinery and heavy equipment.
Mitigation: The County should restrict construction
activity in the easement to daylight hours to the greatest extent feasible.
Professional traffic control should be utilized as necessary. Dust and noise
control should be implemented during construction. Best management practices
should be observed to control excess runoff during construction.
Traffic Impact:
The proposed road would greatly improve
traveling conditions for many residents of Hawaiian Acres. However, both
Average Daily Traffic and peak?hour traffic can be expected to increase due to
a combination of several factors related to within?subdivision, between?subdivisions
and extra?subdivision trips.
Mitigation:
- The potential for speeding can be countered by a police
presence, which should be especially prominent during a short period after
the road is opened. Alternate measures such as road rippling should be
considered if the speeding problem persists.
- The County should monitor Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
and peak hour traffic. Alternatively, County personnel could train the
Road and Traffic subcommittees of the community associations to perform
these tasks.
- Information from these activities can provide a
baseline for future road planning and would help alert the County to
potential traffic volume-related problems. Additional mitigation measures
may be instituted as necessary. The eventual upgrading of the road to full
County standards could be considered if justified by traffic volume and
community consensus.
- The traffic impact will be mitigated by State projects
currently in planning or construction that will add full turning lanes on
Highway 10 at Ainaloa and a left turn lane from Highway 11 onto Kuauli
Street, and also if and when some of the road projects described in
Section 3.7 4 are completed.
Impacts to Natural Resources:
Because the proposed project would take
mostly within an existing road corridor. the potential to destroy or disrupt
native species and communities is minimal. The proposed project has been
evaluated with respect to the characteristics and location of caves. No cutting
will take place in any areas of known caves and the limited degree of road work
necessary on the existing road above these caves should not cause any
structural harm to the caves below, with the possible exception of Pirate's
Cave and U`ilani Cave. Pirates's Cave has been evaluated as minor, already
disturbed. and of limited value.
Mitigation:
U`ilani Cave will be monitored as part of
the Hawaii County Bridge maintenance program. Periodic evaluations of its
stability, including debris measurements and cave roof inspections, will take
place. Structural modifications will be designed and built as necessary. in
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Division. For other areas.
the USGS has offered to perform magnetic surveys to determine the precise
location and approximate depth of lava tubes in the following sections: along
the areas proposed for cutting, in the lot connecting Ainaloa Blvd. to 9 Road,
and above Keala, Kazumura and the D Road complex. This location will help
ensure that no lava tubes are inadvertently collapsed and that the geologic
hazard potentially posed by as yet undetected lava tubes is identified and
mitigated.
If a section of a lava tube with
potential biological value is required to be collapsed, a culvert allowing
airflow passage will be emplaced and the entrance sealed to prevent alien
species introduction.
Impacts to Archaeology and Historic
Sites:
Although historic sites may be present in
the region traversed by the road, they are not expected on or near the road
itself, because the entire route (except the connector lot) was bulldozed to a
width of ~0?60 feet during the creation of the subdivision. The road has since
experienced regular maintenance and brush clearing and is highly unlikely to
contain any traces of its original surface or immediate subsurface. No lava
tubes that are expected to be impacted by the project are known to contain
burials or other historic features, as discussed in Section 2.2.5 above.
Mitigation Measures
The County of Hawaii has coordinated with
the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) to determine the appropriate
level of archaeological research. The consultation has not yet determined the
research mitigation program. At this point, the County plans to have its
personnel or contractor accompany SHPD personnel on a site inspection of the
connector lot and Pirate's Cave to determine if an archaeological inventory is
necessary. If appropriate, the County will contract with an archaeologist to
inventory features, determine significance and suggest appropriate treatments
(e.g., preservation or data recovery). Because the connector lot must be
condemned, right?of?entry has not yet been acquired. If it is determined during
engineering studies that alterations of Pirate's Cave or U`ilani Cave are
necessary, the County w ill consult with SHPD for the appropriate level of
archaeological research.
If any artifacts charcoal, human remains,
or lava tubes are encountered during construction. work w ill immediately cease
and SHPD will be consulted to determine the appropriate research and
mitigation. If human remains are found. the SHPD in coordination with the
Hawaii Burial Council will determine the appropriate disposition of remains. If
at some future date U`ilani Cave must be structurally modified, SHPD will be
consulted for guidance.
Impacts on Public Services:
The proposed project would greatly
facilitate the provision of emergency services not only in Hawaiian Acres and
Ainaloa but in Puna in general. It would also provide a bypass in case of
accidents or Civil Defense emergencies that closed Highway 130 between Ainaloa
and Keaau. The road is supported by the Fire and Police Departments and the
Civil Defense Agency.
Secondary Impacts
The proposed project will not involve
substantial secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public
facilities. The level of impacts that would result would: a) not be substantial
because of the relatively small degree of influence the road would exert; b)
not involve a large area; and c) not be unintended, because the entire area is
zoned for such use.
Mitigation
Any potential secondary impacts can be
mitigated by continual attention to sensible development of Puna,
infrastructure in keeping with the rural atmosphere of the district. These
efforts are underway on a number of fronts, including the Puna Community
Development Plan.
3.3 Impacts of the No?Action Alternative
The roads would remain in private hands
under the No?Action Alternative. No connection between Hawaiian Acres and
Ainaloa would be built. County emergency services would remain difficult to
provide in the area, and traffic attempting to exit Hawaiian Acres during
floods would, as now, be obliged to cross the most flood?prone roads.
The No?Action Alternative would avoid
impacts related to traffic volume. but at the cost of continuing very
substandard road conditions. Safety would continue to be a problem for roads
burdened with blind hills and narrow lanes (particularly 8 Road).
The No?Action Alternative would have
substantially the same impacts as the proposed project in terms of drainages
flora and fauna, and historic sites. because it is believed that Hawaiian Acres
would eventually pave most of the route and many additional roads by itself
County funds to ameliorate drainage problems near the road, however, would not
be available. The protection to rare and endangered species and historic sites
afforded by County involvement is considerably greater than if the subdivisions
undertook improvements privately.
PA RT 4: ANTICIPATED DETERMINATION
The proposed project will not
significantly alter the environment and impacts will be minimal. Therefore, it
is anticipated that a negative Declaration will be filed, and that the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted.
PART 5: FINDINGS
- The proposed project will not involve an irrevocable
commitment or loss or destruction of any natural or cultural resources.
Only a small section of an agriculturally?zoned lot will be committed to a
use other than the current use, which is roadway.
- The proposed project will not curtail the range of
beneficial uses of the environment.
- The proposed project will not conflict with the State's
long?term environmental policies.
- The proposed project will not substantially affect the
economic or social welfare of the community or State. It will help provide
emergency services and allow better transportation for Hawaiian Acres and
Ainaloa residents
- The proposed project does not substantially affect
public health in any detrimental way.
- The proposed project will not involve substantial
secondary impacts, such as population changes or effects on public
facilities. Some secondary impacts may occur as a result of the road's
tendency (among many unrelated factors) to influence in filling of home
construction in the agricultural lots. The level of impacts that would
result would: a) not be substantial because of the relatively small degree
of influence the road would exert; b) not involve a large area; and c) not
be unintended, because the entire area is zoned for such use.
- The proposed project will not involve a substantial
degradation of environmental quality.
- The proposed project will not substantially affect any
rare, threatened or endangered species of flora or fauna or habitat. No
endangered species of flora or fauna are known to exist on the project
site, other than the possibility of use by the wide?ranging species
Hawaiian hawk or `io (Buteo solitarius), and the `ope`ape`a or Hawaiian
hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus). Mitigation measures have been developed
in the unlikely event that such species are disturbed.
- The proposed project is not one which is individually
limited but cumulatively may have considerable effect upon the environment
or involves a commitment for larger actions.
- The proposed project will not detrimentally affect air
or water quality or ambient noise levels.
- Although the proposed project is located in an zone
exposed to some earthquake and volcanic hazard, there are no reasonable
alternatives. The proposed action is intended partly to mitigate hazard
exposure for residents isolated by flooding by providing an alternate
evacuation risk. The project would provide better County emergency
services to a broad area
For the reasons above, the proposed
project will not have any significant effect in the context of Chapter 343,
Hawaii Revised Statues and section 11?200?12 of the State Administrative Rules.
Community Management
Associates, Inc. 1992. Puna Community Development Plan Technical Reference
Report. Hilo: Hawaii County.
_____1995. Puna
Community Development Plan (October 1995 Draft). Hilo: Hawaii County
Furumoto. A.S., N.
Nielsen and W R. Phillips. 1973. A study of Past Earthquakes Isoseismic
Zones of Intensity and Recommended Rules for .Structural Design for Hawaii.
Honolulu: Hawaii Institute of Geophysics.
Gagne. W., and L.
Cuddihy. 1990. "Vegetation," pp. 45?114 in W.L. Whinier, DR. Herbst,
and S.H. Sohmer. eds., .Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii.
2 vols. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Giambelucca, T.W., Nullet.
M. A., and T. A. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. Honolulu:
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Hawaii County Planning
Department. 1989 General Plan, County of Hawaii. Hilo: Hawaii
County.
Hawaii State Department
of Transportation (DOT). 1991. Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan.
Prep. for DOT and County of Hawaii by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas.
Honolulu.
_____. 1992. Traffic
Summary Island of Hawaii. Honolulu: DOT.
Hawaii Office of State
Planning (OSP). 1991. Hawaii State Plan Honolulu: OSP.
Heliker. C. 1990. Volcanic
and Seismic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii. Washington: U.S. GPO.
Howarth. F.G. 1981.
"Community structure and niche differentiation in Hawaiian lava
tubes," pp. 337?366 in Dieter Mueller-Dombois. et al. eds. Island
Ecosystems. Biological organization in selected Hawaiian Communities.
Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross.
Moore, R.B., and F.A.
Trusdell. 1991. Geologic Map of the Lower East Rift Zone of Kilauea Volcano,
Hawaii. U.S. Geological Survey Misc. Investigation Series Map I?2225.
Washington.
U.S. Bureau of the
Census. 1991. 1990 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics.
1990 CP-1-13. Washington: GPO.
U.S. States Soil
Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii. State of
Hawaii. Washington: ACEDIA.
University of Hawaii at
Manoa, Dept. of Geography. 1983 . Atlas of Hawaii. 2nd ed. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
NEVERSINK MANAGEMENT
SOUTHEASTERN CAVE CONSERVANCY, INC.
Adopted
The following management plan was
approved by the Board of Directors of the Southeastern Cave Conservancy on
- While membership is not required for access to the
Neversink property, the Conservancy strongly recommends that visitors be
members of the Conservancy. Membership in the National Speleological Society
is also encouraged.
- Permission is not required to visit the property.
- Use only the designated parking area and trail. Our
access corridor is only 40 feet wide from the road to the main property.
Please respect our neighbors and stay on the
- Due to limited parking facilities, no more than six (6)
vehicles at a time may be in the parking area. There is no parking allowed
along the road or outside the designated area. We do not own that
property. To minimize impact, the Conservancy prefers that groups visiting
the pit be small. Please try to keep the number of people at the pit at
one time to twelve (12) or fewer. The
- Use of the property for any type of commercial
activity, including caving or other recreational activities, is not
allowed.
- Camping, hunting, open fires, and consumption of
alcohol are not allowed on the property.
- To avoid parking and over-use problems during caving
conventions and special events, access to the property will be limited
during those events to prearranged trips organized through the convention
or event.
- Please keep noise to a minimum, and be discreet while
changing.
The latest
http://www.msm.edu/groups/scc.html
Bill Putnam
1865 Eagle Summit Court
Lawrenceville GA 30243
If you are not already a member of the
Conservation and Management Section of the National Speleological Society, you
are invited to join. Dues are $5.00 a year, payable to the
|
Yes, I would
like to join the Conservation/Management Section. Here are my dues in the
amount of $________ (dues of $5/year may be prepaid for up to three years). |
|||||||
|
Name______________________________________ |
|
||||||
|
Address_______________________________________________ |
|
||||||
|
City_____________________________ |
State_____________ |
ZIP_________________ |
|||||
|
Please send
this form with check/money order to the Secretary-Treasurer: |
|
|
|||||
Return to Cave
Conservationist Page