Comments on the
Kahului Commercial Harbor 2030 Master Plan,
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Revised January 25, 2008
By Daniel Kanahele
Kihei
To whom it may concern:
I worked for many years on the SS Independence, one of two sister-ships operated in Hawaiian waters by the now defunct America Hawaii Cruises. As a crew member of this vessel I must have gone in and out of Kahului Harbor a couple hundred times. The thing I remember most about the approach and entrance to the harbor were the ever present strong trade winds, the often rough seas, and the narrow turning basin. I also remember the strong harbor surges and winds that sometimes would cause our mooring lines to snap as they strained to keep the ship tied to pier one.
Reading through the 2030 Kahului Harbor Master plan I see several inadequacies that I would like to address.
The Proposed Harbor Design is Unsafe
It appears to me that placing a breakwater along the western edge of the turning basin will make it more difficult for larger vessels to maneuver in the harbor safely, and especially those vessels that will require the assistance of tug boats to turn either eastward or westward in the turning basin.
Also, I think cruise ships and freighters may have difficulty making the U turn into pier 5 as these vessels would expose their broadside to incoming surf, surge, and trade winds from the harbor opening.
-
Is there enough room for large vessels to turn in the turning basin?
-
Will the Westside breakwater restrict the ability of tugboats to maneuver ships safely?
-
Will surf, surge, and wind make it dangerous for ships turning into pier 5?
-
Can you provide drawings to show how ships of different sizes will maneuver in the turning basin?
-
Can you provide drawings to show how the west break water will impact the ability of tugboats to maneuver ships to piers 1, 2, and 5?
The EIS Does Not Adequately Address the Impact of Harbor Expansion on Hawaiian Culture
The EIS incorrectly identifies certain Hawaiian practices as recreational. As a kanaka maoli I find the DOT’s reclassification of Hawaiian cultural practices, like canoe paddling and surfing, as merely recreational activities to be both insensitive and offensive. These activities are endemic to our culture and they can not be dismissed as just purely recreational pursuits. For many of us they are the very things that help to perpetuate our culture. Maybe you could dismiss these activities as merely recreational in San Francisco Bay, or any other place the DOT may name, but not in Hawaii, not in the mother land of all things Hawaiian. There are State Laws which protect the culture practices of the kanaka maoli. Destroying the surf zones or reducing canoe paddling in Kahului harbor in my view will certain have an impact on Hawaiian culture practices for many hundreds if not thousands of people who use the harbor.
-
Please explain how the DOT reclassified paddling and surfing as recreation and not cultural and cite the source of this information.
-
Please explain how you are able to show that the harbor expansion plan will have no significant impacts to Hawaiian Culture especially as it pertains to paddling and surfing in Kahului Harbor.
-
Explain how you plan to relocate the surf zone as you state in the EIS.
-
Show relocation of north shore canoe race course, paddling hales, parking area, as a result of displacement by harbor expansion. Show what construction would be required to replace the canoe club facilities. Show construction cost, plan, location, and funding.
The EIS Does Not Adequately Address the a No Action Plan
The EIS does not consider the no-to-low cost action alternative which would be to give the harbors freight operation priority over the operations of the passenger cruise ships. By removing the passenger cruise ships from the harbor the freight crisis could be solved immediately without waiting 6 or more years to build pier 5 at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be far better for the cruise ships to make landfall on the leeward side of the island where there are more amenities to satisfy the expectations of their passengers..
Also as I write this, 2 out of the 3 cruise ships in the NCL have left the islands due to changes in the market place. Also, the Hawaii SuperFerry appears to be floundering badly as it continues to suffer from low rider ship. There is a growing feeling in the community that the HSF will suffer the same fate as Sea Flight. The EIS does not address the very real possiblity that neither the Hawaii SuperFerry nor the Cruise Ships may still be in business here in Hawaii by the time pier 5 is built. Why build pier 5 and spend 1/3 of a billion dollars for business whose future in Hawaii is now seriously in doubt?
The EIS is inadequate because other discussed alternatives were not included
The DOT expansion plan is like the Johnny one note approach. The DOT sings the same song over and over again which is to expand the Kahului Harbor inward which would have a major impact on other harbor users like paddlers and surfers, and make it unacceptably dangerous for ships to maneuver in the harbor.
Besides the no cost plan, the EIS did not seriously address expanding outside of the harbor either to the east or west..
In conclusion, I find the current Kahului Harbor expansion plan under consideration by the DOT unfeasible, unsafe, and not well thought out in both design and application.
Sincerely,
Daniel Kanahele