Should mitigation measures be required by law?
Mitigation measures are captured in permitting and do not need to be required by law. (16: 2, 14)
- Use permitting or another regulatory mechanism. (4: 1, 2, 1)
- The current system usually works. It could be modified to ensure that all mitigation measures are written into conditional permits. (10: 7, 1, 2)
- Mitigation measures have to be flexible because they can and should change over time. (2: 1, 1)
- The process is about disclosure; it should stay that way.
- Model Hawaii’s system on NEPA’s “Record of Decision” process. (7: 3, 4)
- If there is no legal requirement, then mitigation should not be used to avoid an EIS/get a FONSI
- Yes, but updating to equal or better measures should be allowable.
- The document could include a “mitigation monitoring plan”, a spreadsheet written in a way that is enforceable and could become binding in acceptance statement. (16: 3, 11, 2)
- Mitigation measures should be given more thoughtful, focused and realistic consideration. ()
- It seems like 99% of the time this is covered in permits. Has a study been done to determine if this is a real problem or just a perceived one? ()
- There is no enforcement or overseeing agency. How would this be monitored?
- Mitigation is often complaint driven, not agency initiated. (reactive not proactive)
- Some things cannot be mitigated. There should be thresholds for impacts. If these are exceeded, the project should not be approved. (5: 4, 1)
- What else is the point of mentioning them? Citizens expect these to mean something.
Does current EIS practice in Hawaii effectively address cumulative impacts?
Current practice in Hawaii does not effectively address cumulative impacts. ()
- "We are at a loss for what to do.”
- It’s lip service/cursory/glossed over.
- Impacts are separated and downplayed. (6: 1, 5)
- There is not a good framework to consider this. A project-by-project approach doesn’t work. (3: 1, 2)
- It’s thoroughly addressed for traffic, but not anything else. (8: 6, 2)
- Its inconsistent; some types of impacts are easier to address than others. ()
- Good consultants do this. (4: 3, 1)
- Without long-term planning, there is nothing to refer to.
- Cumulative impacts should be looked at earlier. Waiting until the EIS is too late. (2: 1, 1)
- The process should be more tied to zoning/land use/development plans/community plans/general plan. (24: 9, 2, 13)
- A planning agency should oversee this. It shouldn’t fall to individuals. Take the requirement out of the law. (4)
Create a consistent system for measuring/collecting/reporting data. Develop baselines or thresholds that can make cumulative impact analysis meaningful. (13: 7, 4, 2)
- Develop baselines for quantifiable impacts; assess how projects affect baseline. (22: 11, 6, 5)
- Create database for long term data on measurable impacts (i.e. water quality and air quality). (6: 1, 3, 2)
- Standardized methodology/protocols for data collection. ()
- Without data, there cannot be any meaningful scientific debate about cumulative impacts.(2: 1, 1)
- It’s a lot to expect the private sector to contribute to a solution for a problem that was ignored by the public agency responsible for it. (2: 1, 1)
- This is an important issue but should be kept practical; if you take it too far it becomes ridiculous. (7: 5, 2)
- All impacts are cumulative on some level. The process looks at impacts in a piecemeal, fragmented way that doesn’t reflect this, and that leads to impacts being downplayed. (2: 1, 1)
- The army does a good job of looking at cumulative impacts, NEPA is stronger on this than 343. (3)
- We are about 25 years behind. The state doesn’t understand the magnitude of the problem.
- There should be a carrying capacity study for the islands. (3)
- Address cumulative impacts with strategic EAs/EISs. ()
- Part of the analysis of cumulative impacts should include considering alternative actions.
- Cumulative impacts should be a significance criterion.
- The planning office is too influenced by political goals.
- Large projects are sometimes broken up into smaller ones to avoid having to do an EIS.