The meeting began with presentations by the facilitator, Mr. Spiegel, and Dr. Lewis, the program manager 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 as assuring the impartiality and fairness of the meeting. Dr. Lewis of DOE further defined the scope of the project, introduced members of the EIS team, and briefly described.the EIS process. The overwhelming concerns of the meeting were Native Hawaiian issues. The presenters [more than 70%, most of whom addressed no other issue] want the EIS to respect Native Hawaiian religion, race, rights, language, and culture, noting that they believe that geothermal development is a desecration of Pele [{approx}60% of all presenters]. They expressed concern that their ancestors and burials should not be desecrated. The EIS should address Native Hawaiian concerns that the HGP would negatively impact Native Hawaiian fisheries, subsistence lifestyles, and religious practices. Virtually all the speakers expressed frustration with government. Most (> 70%) of the speakers voiced concern and frustration regarding lack of consideration for Native Hawaiians by government and lack of trust in government. One commenter requested that the EIS should consider the international implications of the U.S allowing their rainforests to be cleared, when the U.S. government asks other nations to preserve theirs. Nearly 30% of the commenters want the EIS to address the concern that people on Moloka'i will bear major environmental consequences of the HGP, but not gain from it. The commenters question whether it is right for Moloka'i to pay for benefits to Oahu, particularly using an unproven technology. After questioning the reliability and feasibility of the marine cable:, nearly 30% of the presenters were concerned about the impacts of the submarine cable. In specific, they suggested that the EIS investigate the impacts the cable would have on fisheries and marine life due to electromagnetic fields, dredging, and oil-release. The EIS should study the impacts of the HGP on the humpback whale and other marine species, particularly their birthing grounds, noting whales' hypersensitivity to emf and sound. One commenter suggested that the EIS examine the economics of the cable, including the need to build specialized ships to lay it, harbour(s), and the cable itself. One commenter was concerned about the future uses of the cable suggesting that the EIS should address the impacts that would result if the cable connecting Moloka'i to Oahu is used to transmit power from large coal or other types of power generation facilities constructed on Moloka'i. Commenters questioned the reliability of geothermal development in a region that is both seismically and volcanically active. One suggested that the EIS examine the merits of projects that conserve energy. With respect to land use, commenters asked that the EIS examine the propriety of using Native Hawaiian homelands and ceded lands for the HGP, questioning specifically the land exchange in Puna [Campbell Estate for Wao Kele o Puna]. The commenters want the EIS to address the issue of air, water and sail quality preservation. More than 20% of the commenters asked that the EIS examine concerns about the environmental consequences of the HGP to the rainforest, including possible species extinction. In particular, the EIS should address the impacts of roads associated with the HGP in the rainforest, including the resulting importation of exotic species (for example banana poko), which successfully compete against native species; and the effects of noise and fumes which negatively impact plants, birds, animals, and insects.
