Honolulu Rail Fiasco and Fraud: Detailed Documentation Submitted To SHPD, FTA, HART Completely Ignored
July 22, 2013
Kanehili Cultural Hui comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS filed
The DSEIS was required by Judge Tashima in his ruling against the City and FTA on the three issues of their needing to a) justify their disqualification of the Beretania Street Tunnel Alternative as not being preferable to the current Project, b) justify their conclusion that the rail Project would not have a significant effect on Mother Waldron Park, and c) document the environmental effects on Traditional Cultural Properties. Comments were required to be filed by July 22 as we warned earlier (see below).
QUESTION:
Federal Judge A. Wallace Tashima ruled the city "failed to complete reasonable efforts to identify" traditional cultural properties along the 20-mile proposed rail line, and ordered the city to identify those properties.
Before continuing with the Project in any way that may use unidentified [traditional cultural properties] (TCPs), Defendants must complete their identification of above-ground TCPs within the corridor … For any TCPs identified, Defendants must conduct a complete Section 4(f) analysis. The ROD must be supplemented to include any newly identified TCPs. The FEIS must also be supplemented to the extent that this process requires changes that “may result in significant environmental impacts ‘in a manner not previously evaluated and considered.’”
An appeal in the case of Honolulutraffic et al. vs. Federal Transit Administration et al. was filed last night with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
At its core, the appeal focuses on the improper alternatives analysis undertaken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in the Final EIS in violation of Section 4(f), which Congress wrote to protect historic properties and resources.
Why did the HRTP – SHPD AIS completely ignore so many along the route?
Federal Judge A. Wallace Tashima ruled the city also didn’t adequately consider building a Beretania Street tunnel as part of an alternative to a rail line.
Maybe the question really should be, why didn’t the HART Rail route follow what would have been a far more prudent mauka route that would have avoided major ground water problems, iwi kupuna burials rather than a downtown shopping center to West Oahu shopping center route? Residents in early scoping meetings supported and expected a Commuter Railway from Kapolei, along Farrington Hwy, into downtown to the University of Hawaii. Everyone agreed then that this would take cars off of H-1. Yet the entire rail system was reconfigured to become not a commuter rail system but instead a land development vehicle using federal FTA funds which really won’t be a commuter rail system.
QUESTION:
Fourth, during the Alternatives Analysis phase of what became the rail project, the City and FTA failed to consider BRT a “reasonable alternative” despite only two years previously having declared it the “Locally Preferred Alternative.” Further testifying to its reasonableness, the 2003 BRT EIS had forecast more ridership for BRT than the City and FTA currently forecasts for rail — and at a tiny fraction of the cost of rail.
Fifth, Judge A. Wallace Tashima, the Federal Court District Court Judge presiding over this matter declared at the outset that he was unfamiliar with the most relevant statute concerning this issue, Section 4(f).
In short, the City and FTA failed to "rigorously explore all reasonable alternatives," of which some variant of the 2003 BRT plan should have been explored.
Parsons Brinckerhoff wrote in the 2003 Final EIS:
"...extreme disruption of existing underground utilities and constant dewatering made necessary by a high water table and poor soils would drive construction costs to unacceptable levels." -2003 FEIS
How does the HTRP-HART AIS answer this obvious clear warning by Parsons Brinckerhoff? Doesn’t this REQUIRE a very careful and complete survey of the below ground Karst water system?
QUESTION:
Corridors will impacted because of related infrastructure- as mentioned in the 2003 FEIS –there will be “extreme disruption of existing underground utilities”
QUESTION:
Hawaii Community Development Authority Director Tony Ching made an important statement about sinkholes and karst. As a state director of developments on major Transit Oriented Development projects, his statement should carry significant weight and another warning that ground water will be a major HART project development concern.
QUESTION:
Limu needs fresh water – there are like salmon- come in to spawn. Ponds are existing biosphere. Shrimp exists below the ground in the Karst, indicating it is a living eco-system and wetland. How is HART going to mitigate this during all related infrastructure construction?
****************************************************************************
QUESTION:
WHO DECIDES TCP ELIGIBILITY AND HOW?
HART Website says “only NHO’s that attach religious significance to any identified properties” can identify TCPS…But this ISN’T COMPLETELY TRUE:
“The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is required to make eligibility determinations in
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and any Native Hawaiian
Organizations that attach religious significance to any identified properties.”
http://www.honolulutransit.org/media/183404/TCP%20Summary%20-%20PA%20Stipulation%20II_FINAL.pdf
SO- Why doesn’t the HART Website make it clear that EVERYONE of any ethnic ancestry can decide what and where a TCP is?
****************************************************************************
QUESTION:
January 2013 HART Rail Meeting – “Nearly 100% represent actual/physical column locations”
(How can this be if all engineering and design is not completed?)
Stated in the minutes: Per the approved AISP for City Center, trench locations represent a number of different elements of the project:
1. nearly 100% represent actual/physical column locations while others represent utility
locations as a number of columns will be built where there are existing utilities today
(need to be moved in the future)
2. station location pillars and Utility locations/re-locations
QUESTION:
January 2013 HART Rail Meeting
Mahealani Cypher
1. You have an option of putting the column there and relocating the utility or relocating the column to where there are no utilities; doesn’t this involve another survey?
QUESTION:
January 2013 HART Rail Meeting
Kaleo Paik
1. Can PB be more accountable to the staff that they pick for geotechnical-type work? When I ask the person on-site and he has no idea what a coral shelf is – that’s scary – because he’s only looking at stratigraphy. As the prime contractor, PB needs to make sure that its subcontractors are looking at things through a cultural lens, especially in these sensitive areas. It’s difficult if they come from a foreign place because they don’t understand our geography.
QUESTION:
January 2013 HART Rail Meeting
Mike Lee
1. Addressed concern with 80-foot depth of columns in conjunction with the trench depth that is being studied and how it further affects ancient TCP like voids that carry freshwater that’s below [the surface] and that has iwi. You only went to the alluvial layer.
2. First Hawaiian Bank Center went through a 6-month delay during construction of their Corporate Tower because they encountered a void cave, which is a public trust resources and a Hawaiian cultural property.
3. I keep on putting it for the record in case there’s future litigation. We’re putting it on the table because if it’s not, it’s called “inadvertent” under the law. Due care with due notice in due time is part of what the law looks at; not empty yak. I’m putting it down for the record because it exists. If you fail to do it then it’s part of your to do list and if we’re not here to tell you what your to do list is then how do
you know what to do.
4. Your view is western-focused. That’s your definition of “culture” from a foreign entity.
5. The catacombs in Rome are considered archaeological inventory but with us, we get negated because we’re not the Pope in Rome. Your [Joanna] view is tinted; it’s a western focus. That’s why I say cultural interpreter. You don’t bother to find out what our culture is in printed documentation where your researches didn’t bother to look at because they’re experts and not cultural practitioners. You excluded a big swath of our people and cut it off when it suits you; that’s not acceptable and we are here to say that it’s not acceptable.
QUESTION:
January 2013 HART Rail Meeting
Hinaleimoana Wong-Kalu
1. As the OIBC Chair, I look forward to perhaps maybe a brief sheet of statement in writing that includes everything up until now articulating and detailing the project’s very focused dedication and commitment to some of the cultural things (language, sub-surface investigations, cultures in addition to Hawaiian, etc.) that have been brought forth. I have sat at this table for four years now. We’ll wait
with anticipating for that statement.
2. The legacy of iwi that has been encountered is our/their history, language and culture. Don’t prostitute our culture but elevate and further embrace it. Focus on the Hawaiian first, then the other cultures fall into place. The legacy of the iwi that serve to guide what happens in the days ahead.
VII. Educational and Interpretive Programs, Materials and Signage
QUESTION:
January 2013 HART Rail Meeting – how can this APE be determined if final AIS isn’t completed along the entire route- as directed in legal ruling against segmentation. HART mailed approximately 3,600 postcards inviting owners of potentially eligible properties in the APE and within a 2,000-foot radius of station locations to the first of two Historic Preservation Educational Workshops in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Program noted in Stipulation IX.B.
V. Recordation and Documentation
V.A. Historic Context Study (HCS)
No update
Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes
“if there is potential for loss of landscape character whose significance is rooted in the community’s activities and processes (or other aspects of its history)—this guide may be of service.”
QUESTION: Why wasn’t historic Ewa Plantation, Ewa Village and the Hawaiian Railway yard NOT considered as a Cultural Landscape or Traditional Cultural Property/Place?
V.B. Cultural Landscape Reports (CLR)
QUESTION:
VI. National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmark Nominations. There is not a specific time frame for completion of National Register (NR) nominations other than before revenue service – except for sites in proximity to Pearl Harbor. Honouliuli Bridge final NR nomination will be submitted to NPS. (?)
What are traditional cultural properties?
COMMENT:
January 2013 HART Rail Meeting
Mike Lee
1. Nothing is heard. There’s no eBlast or meeting minutes to make us feel warm and fuzzy that we’ve brought these things to the table. Nobody out there ever knows what was discussed. The priorities were never listed and blasted out to the stakeholders. We put it on the table year after year. You don’t come back with a specific date to follow-up on items we’ve requested.
Action Items - January 2013 HART Rail Meeting
QUESTION:
1. HART to staff Architectural Historian position- why did this take so long to fill during a very critical period when many important decisions were being made?
2. HART/FTA to discuss with attorneys if opportunity for public review/comment of the additional information on the three Section 4(f) claims; respond to NTHP inquiry.
3. HART to distribute BPM Outline and Definitive Schedule by March 2013
4. Kākoʻo to contact the local DOI office to get list of NHOs for information
Action Items - January 2013 HART Rail Meeting
QUESTION: This was rhis never done or in such a vague manner as to be entirely useless
5. Schedule meeting with Mike Lee et al to discuss TCP Study for Sections 1 through 3; namely Section 1 (WOFH); justify why not all of the information submitted by Mike Lee weren’t included.
6. Schedule a directly centered meeting with Hawaiians
QUESTION: How can this be done when not all TCP or historic sites and buildings were not identified?
VII. Educational and Interpretive Programs, Materials and Signage. Interpretive Plan Meetings ... Historic Preservation Educational Workshops. February 2013
QUESTION:
When can a meeting be arranged to go over our concerns about historic and cultural sites in Honouliuli-Ewa that we believe are very important and must be included?
