The evidence - language in UHWO's FEIS requires SEIS for PUEO
Click to teach Gmail this conversation is important.
Who in authority has the guts to carry out the law- and admit there is pueo activity documented at UHWO and as such, the pueo be quantified as a new condition to the property?
Why is UH Systems, DLNR/Governor, Ombudsman, UH BOR, UH President - all acting in bad faith
to the fact that they are to protect State species of concern on State Property/undeveloped State Property - and rather, all those in authority to adhere to the law- refusing to do what the FEIS (Final EIS) mandates- that a Supplemental (SEIS) SHALL be ordered- why has no SEIS been ordered?
A new- unplanned for environmental impact is to be assessed upon the new condition- pueo on site- and such is to be investigated per the FEIS- the law for SEIS- see it pasted below......
This is the link to the Office of Environmental Quality Control's approval of the FEIS for UHWO /letter sent out on January 19, 2007:
On page 3, under Item #G, it states:
:
So where is the SEIS order? Why has DLNR refused the SEIS be ordered?
DLNR is in hiding- refusing to answer the inquiries- why?
Answer is, DLNR Chair Case is clearly, acting in non-compliance to State Env Protection Laws....
On Saturday, May 26, 2018, 7:04:23 AM HAST, Tom Berg <tomberg00@yahoo.com> wrote:
Answer to the following inquiry unabated:
Complaint submitted by Mike Lee to Ombudsman in 2017:
The Administrative Rules for the DLNR mandate the DLNR investigate property in the State of Hawaii's jurisdiction, of which property has been certified by an ornithologist, to contain the inhabitation of Pueo, and therefore, the DLNR to provide protocol to protect the endangered specie; the Pueo on Oahu.
The FEIS for UHWO states that in the event a new condition becomes observed on the property after the FEIS has been codified (the FEIS approved and signed by the Governor), then the property owner, the UH Systems (Board of Regents), as tenants, shall order the FEIS be amended. The amended FEIS is to be called a "Supplemental EIS" (SEIS), and to be ordered by the Governor, on behalf of the new condition and UH Systems execute that order.
As of May 26, 2018, the Ombudsman has determined the Pueo, is not a new condition to the property at UHWO because the new condition has to be in the form of a nest- featuring either eggs, or fledglings unable to fly.
The question unanswered by the Ombudsman, DLNR, and UHWO, is where does it state in any law, or Administrative Rules, that the SEIS, in order to be triggered, must contain an active nest, and once the nest has been vacated, the need to execute an SEIS becomes moot?
Can you live in your bedroom forever- don't you have to leave your own nest to forage- etc? Does the Pueo nest year-round- stay put and inhabit one nest perpetually throughout all seasons? No it does not-
So where does it state, only active nests are to be protected?
Find it. Where is that language- why does the Ombudsman base its decision a Pueo nest has to be active and present for the property owner to order the SEIS- with the Pueo being the new condition to the property? Where is that- nests only language?
It does not exist.
The Ombudsman is covering up the non-compliance- for there IS NO LANGUAGE in any text, that the DLNR will only protect an active nest of an endangered species- that is false....so why no SEIS for UHWO ordered by DLNR when the FEIS for UHWO clearly says, SHALL order one?
You can also watch this on Olelo Ch. 54, this Sunday, May 27 @ 9PM-
TB
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment