Scoping Meeting Summary, Wailuku, Maui, March 9, 1992, 2 PM Session

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