The State Department of Transportation has requested an exemption from the regular procurement process in order to award a $1 million contract to Belt Collins to conduct an environmental assessment of the Superferry as ordered by the Supreme Court. The cost is estimated at $1 million over a one year period with an option to extend if a full environmental impact statement is called for. One worrying aspect is that the description offered is still limited to “the impact of ferry operation at the harbor and whether the use of the state facility will necessitate furtehr study and mitigation measures.” The study is to include Kahului, Kawaihae, Honolulu, and Nawiliwili harbors.
I was thinking this through over the weekend, and just can’t believe that anyone looking to launch a service that will cost more than $200 million to get off the ground would not have done their own environmental assessment as part of their due diligence so as not to be suprised somewhere farther down the line. So why would they refuse to go ahead with a formal EA when all these agencies, from the Maritime Administration and the PUC to the state’s Environmental Council, not to mention the county councils and a good slice of the public, all pointed to the need for environmental compliance?
Even if they thought the project should be exempt, why would you risk that investment on that somewhat shaky premise?
Then there were hints over the past couple of weeks that the ferries could be put into service elsewhere if they can’t operate here. I wonder where that “elsewhere” is? Then I have to wonder, although this is more of a long shot, whether Hawaii was simply the political cover for obtaining the huge federal guarantees. Since the Maritime Administration has said several times that they have not put in budget requests for loan guarantees for a number of years, these funds must have come through a congressional earmark. So which member of Congress was behind the Superferry earmark?
The Advertiser reported last week that it wasn’t Senator Inouye.
U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawai’i, who has been supportive of the loan-guarantee program in the past, did not take a position on the loan guarantees for Superferry and urged the Maritime Administration to follow its criteria, according to his staff.
Could it have been handed off to his close friend, Senator Stevens? I don’t know where this bit of info would fit into the Superferry puzzle, but it would be interesting to find out.
And if you don’t have plans for tonight, you might find the meeting of “electronic pizza” up your alley.
Presentation by: Melissa McFerrin
Manager Community Relations, Hawaii SuperferryEverything you wanted to know about the Superferry, including the latest flap.
Tonight get first hand, not only the technical facts and figures about the Superferry, but the inside scoop of the controversy that has the Superferry in court and being blocked by surfers from docking on the Big Island.
Find out the “Why and How” of the opportunity the Hawaii Superferry represents for our Islands.
Melissa has been a member of the Hawaii Superferry team since 2005 when she was with Starr Seigle, where she was part of the team engaged in the development of the Hawaii Superferry brand identity and vessel design.Sign up and receive free parking by sending an email with your full name and phone number, before noon on Tuesday, to Courtney Brown ( Cyberpizza@gmail.com)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Doors open at 5:45pm Program begins at 6:00pm
Marine Science Auditorium, room 114, UH Manoa Campus
$8 per person for pizza & drinks.
Click here for the full email announcement.
Day 1 of the Advertiser’s new Hawaii’s Business Today section yesterday was certainly a disappointment. In my view, it looked busy and lacked substance.
Here’s an opinion from a reader and former newspaper editor:
The new Advertising tabloid business section is so blah. There is no news in it, except the thrilling development that the new publisher has promoted Platte from vice president/news to senior vice president/news. I’m so old that I can remember that the highest title in the news section was editor, without any other title.
I guess this means PBN will easily withstand yet another round of competition from the big guys.
Page C5 of the Advertiser Business section was clearly an advertisement for Savio, but looked at first like a Q&A with the editors. Different typeface, and his ad at bottom blended in. But, there was no indication that it was advertisement, as usual in the regular newspaper. And, how was a feature on Limahuli Garden an article about tourism? Just seems like they’re taking the advertising supplement to new heights (lows). At least PBN doesn’t mix it up like that.
“Even if they thought the project should be exempt, why would you risk that investment on that somewhat shaky premise?â€
Indeed. Most seasoned investors would view this oversight with great concern. Coupled with a determined resistance to a formal environmental analysis renders the purposed project all the more troublesome. Worthy of additional study are the merits of a state funded environmental assessment. Perhaps a more conventional approach, as you mentioned in your opening comments, is for a purposed startup enterprise to contract and fund comprehensive impact assessments as fundamental planning prior to commencing operations; and to demonstrate a sound and prudent management stance to its potential capital venture funding partners.
Your points are well presented. Many of us have been pondering these matters as well, as we watch this unusual tale unfold.
What I don’t understand is how many vice presidents a newspaper needs to promote to senior VPs, when they just went through a well-publicized cutbac … I mean buyout exodus?
In my opinion, as someone who is frequently involved in the environmental disclosure process in my governmental job, it would be wiser and more expeditious for the state to dispense with the environmental assessment (EA) process and go directly to the environmental impact statement (EIS) process. The consultant’s report will have to be just as thorough whether it is titled an EA or EIS.
The EA process is set up to determine whether there are any “significant” impacts. “Significance” is a subjective determination which may not be agreed upon by both project opponents and proponents. A claim by project proponents of no significance is likely to be legally challenged.
The EIS process concedes that some impacts may be significant, and the proponent addresses these anticipated impacts by proposing means to “mitigate” — eliminate or minimize — those impacts.
Aside from the writing and preparation of the environmental report(s), which can be lengthy depending on their thoroughness, the EA process requires a draft review period of 30 days for the draft document and 30 days for the final document to receive possible legal challenges. The EIS public review period is 45 days for the draft and final document.