Build Makaha Bridges Mauka of Makaha Beach Park
  • Petitioning Mayor Kirk Caldwell

This petition will be delivered to:

Mayor, City and County of Honolulu
Mayor Kirk Caldwell
Chairman, Policy Committee, Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization
Chairman Breene Harimoto
Council Member, City Council, City and County of Honolulu
Council Member Kymberly Pine
Executive Director, Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization
Executive Director Brian Gibson
Division Administrator, FHWA
Mr. Abraham Wong
Structural Engineer, FHWA
Mr. Domingo Galiciano
Director, Parks and Recreation, City and County of Honolulu
Director Toni Robinson
Corporate Communications, R.M. Towill
Heidi Kim
Governor, State of Hawaii
Governor Neil Abercrombie
Secretary, WCNB
Waianae Coast Neighborhood Board
Representative, District 44, House of Representatives, State of Hawaii
Representative Jo Jordan
Representative, District 43, House of Representatives, State of Hawaii
Representative Karen Awana
Director, Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii
Director Glenn Okimoto
Senator, District 21, Senate, State of Hawaii
Senator Maile Shimabukuro

Build Makaha Bridges Mauka of Makaha Beach Park

    1. Petition by

      Malama Makaha

     The internationally famous Makaha Surfing Beach and its facilities must be preserved and protected.  Any new bridge or roadwork on Farrington Highway at or near the beach should incorporate the community's preferred mauka route to the north and northwest of Makaha Beach Park as depicted on the master plan for the Makaha Beach Park dated May 24, 1999.  If the current bridges are rebuilt as planned at their current location, such an investment (current cost of $23 M) would jeopardize the preferred mauka reroute and the Makaha Beach Park project until these new bridges need replacement 70-100 years from now. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would be willing to tear them down for many years from now to build the mauka route and park the community has voiced its concerns for since the mid-1980s.  If the current Makaha Bridges replacement project proceeds as planned, the placing of the PROJECT's temporary bypass road on the makai side of Farrington highway will place the Makaha Beach ecosystem in immediate peril, especially if the "five-year flood level standard" temporary bridges are washed into the bay by inland flooding or ocean surge.  If the mauka route is constructed, there will be no need to construct a temporary bypass route because the current route would be fully available. The existing bridges have been recently repaired and reinforced by the State DOT; there are no posted limititations on either of the bridges, they have withstood multiple 100 year floods (including the most recent in 2008).  These bridges should last many years, giving plenty of time for the State DOT to reevaluate alternative #4 (the mauka route) and modify the current design to accommodate the community's needs and desires.

Recent signatures


    1. Makaha Bridges Project - 4(f) Issue - Volunteer Needed

      Aloha Kakou,

      The Makaha Bridges Project is still being held up thankfully by a critical process the HDOT should have taken before they started the planning and approval process.

      “Since the mid-1960s, federal transportation policy has reflected an effort to preserve publicly owned public parks and recreation areas, waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and historic sites considered to have national, state, or local significance. The Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 included a special provision to carry out this effort called Section 4(f).”

      The HDOT is attempting to obtain their 4(f) clearance the easiest and quickest means possible without cancelling the project. Malama Makaha is asking for a supporter or two to come forward and volunteer to learn the Federal process and use this knowledge to ensure the “Officials with Jurisdiction” (Parks Department and DLNR) require complete compliance of the Project and HDOT to the fullest extent of the law. This would probably be perfect for an environmental NPO to assist or environmental attorney to assist, but to date none have come forward to assist with the Makaha effort. A motivated detail oriented novice could also prevail on this issue, because the issue is not that complicated; persistence is the most valuable trait that would be desired.

      Without a volunteer coming forward, it is very likely the 4(f) process will not be taken seriously by HDOT or the Parks Dept and the de minimis approval route will slide through with little or no oversight.

      Please review the Section 4(f) Tutorial recently discovered at the DOT’s site, and consider coming forward in this noble endeavor.

      And please consider signing the very important Army Downsizing on Oahu petition – link is at


      AL @ Malama Makaha

      From: []
      Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:09 PM
      Subject: Bridge project - 4(f)

      Aloha Keith,

      I and three others who were with me when we visited Mazie Hirono’s office on the Army Downsizing issue also stopped by FHWA yesterday. The Feds were reluctant to meet with us since this is a total State issue except for the NEPA process in their opinion, but I reminded them of my letter to DOT Secretary Fox and that they were in fact involved with Malama Makaha and our concerns with the 4(f) approval action..

      What is the date of the oldest document you have regarding the Bridge Project; anything prior to 2005? Ref the 4(f) issue with the project, the HDOT will likely take an approach asking for f(4) approval of the project via a “de minimis ” approach. This “de minimis” approach will allow easy 4f approval for the HDOT via the “Agency with Jurisdiction” (Parks Dept). The de minimis procedure did not exist before 2005; if the project started before them, technically they should have to do a full blown 4(f) approval, which would theoretically require the project to start all over regarding some hearings. Given the folks involved, it’s unlikely we can stop this on the 4(f) issue, but it has been helping to delay the process for over a year. HDOT earlier said they would have a recommendation to “Agency with Jurisdiction” the by June of this year. Currently they’re still not done. Ps., Okimoto is gone and the Governor is almost gone.

      WOW, I just found out there is a 4(f) Tutorial when checking how de minimis is spelled:

      A de minimis impact involves the use of Section 4(f) property that is generally minor in nature. A de minimis impact is one that, after taking into account avoidance, minimization, mitigation and enhancement measures, results in no adverse effect to the activities, features, or attributes qualifying a park, recreation area, or refuge for protection under Section 4(f). For historic properties, a de minimis impact is one that results in a Section 106 determination of "no adverse effect" or "no historic properties affected." A de minimis impact determination requires agency coordination with the officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property and opportunities for public involvement. A de minimisimpact determination may not be made when there is a constructive use.
      A determination of de minimis impact on a historic site may be made when all three of the following criteria are satisfied:
      1. The process required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) results in the determination of "no adverse effect" or "no historic properties affected" with the concurrence of the
      State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), if the ACHP is participating in the Section 106 consultation;
      2. The SHPO and/or THPO, and ACHP, if the ACHP is participating in the Section 106 consultation, is informed of U.S. DOT's intent to make a de minimis impact determination based on their written concurrence in the Section 106 determination; and
      3. U.S. DOT has considered the views of any consulting parties participating in the Section 106 consultation.
      A determination of de minimis impact on parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, may be made when all three of the following criteria are satisfied:
      1. The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f);
      2. The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and
      3. The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of U.S. DOT's intent to make the de minimis impact determination based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f).

    2. Update on Makaha Bridges Project

      Aloha Malama Makaha Supporters,

      Malama Makaha and its supporters continue to have success in delaying the Makaha Bridges Project. There are ongoing efforts and issues being addressed that could cause Hawaii DOT to cancel the project or modify the project to meet our desires for a mauka routing of Farrington Highway around the beach and beach park. We have been waiting for an announcement due out by FHWA since June 2014 for an update on 4f environmental issues we raised to the EPA last year. When we get the word on this issue we will contact supporters with more definitive information.

      Very recently, people were alarmed by construction work currently going on next to the wooden bridges; rightfully concerned that the bridge project construction might be underway. The work being done is installation of fiber optic lines by AT&T. The Hawaii DOT still has many hurdles to jump over before a contract is sent out for bidding on the project we strongly oppose.

      Although not related to the bridges project another very important and time-sensitive issue has arisen that Malama Makaha supporters maybe interested in. Details of this issue can be seen at a new petition just released or by visiting the website The issue pertains to potential downsizing of Army forces on Oahu (19,800 personnel) and the potential of returning very valuable facilities and precious lands back to the people of Hawaii. The following is a link to the petition:

      Mahalo for your continued support and interest,

      AL Frenzel

    3. Turning Lead into GOLD

      Why are there so many higher ups that refuse to budge on the Makaha Bridges Project? Who has the most to GAIN? Unions? Politicians? Developers? The People of Makaha? Makaha Beach? And who could be paying who? Political contributions? Under-the table money? Promises of jobs or board positions? Here's one of several theories of where the money is to be made and who could already be sharing these anticipated profits:

      This view is a theory; an opinion; probably not even close to being factual; please judge for yourself.

    4. Reached 1,000 signatures
    5. Potential By-Pass Road Disaster

      Potential By-Pass Road Disaster

      During the Makaha Bridges replacement project HDOT will be routing traffic on a temporary by-pass road on the makai side of Farrington Highway. This route will be used for a minimum of 18 months but probably longer. Many potential delays exist including a court injunction, discovery of iwi kapuna, protests, work stoppages, labor disputes, weather and many other reasons.

    6. Makaha Beach During a Storm

      Makaha Beach During a Storm

      This is a collection of short video clips taken at Makaha Beach during Hurricane Iniki. Note #1: The temporary by pass road planned for the the HDOT bridge replacement project will be built on the vulnerable ocean side of Farrington Highway (it will be in use for 16 months or more, depending on protests, injunctions, discovery of Na Iwi Kapuna, storms, and other construction delays).

    7. Reached 750 signatures
    8. Official HDOT Testimony of the Makaha Bridges' Condition

      Makaha Bridges - Condition Testimony

      On March 1, 2012, testimony was presented to City Council members by the State DOT regarding the condition of the Makaha bridges. The video clips in this presentation account for all of the testimony provided on the bridge's condition.

    9. Sign-waving Rally BIG SUCCESS, more planned

      Over 40 volunteers showed their support for the Malama Makaha save the beach effort on Friday, March 8th. This on-going Friday event (4-6:30 pm) is expected to grow in size and make a huge impact upon the politicians who are currently ignoring the people of the community.

    10. Reached 500 signatures
    11. Farrington Highway - Unsafe through Makaha Beach Park for more than 75 yrs.

      Farrington Highway - Unsafely dividing Makaha Beach and Makaha Beach Park for over 75 yrs

      Farrington Highway has passed directly through Makaha Beach and Makaha Beach Park since it was constructed in 1937. The route should be relocated to the mauka side of the beach park in conjunction with the upcoming bridge replacement project.

    12. Reached 250 signatures


    Reasons for signing

    • Māhealani Roberts NUʻUANU, HI
      • 9 days ago

      This is important to me because i want to support Makaha Beach

      • 9 days ago

      I want the beach gowers on Makaha to be safe

    • Kawena Kaleiohi HAWAII, HI
      • 11 days ago

      Because i love makaha and its a good place

    • Glen Kila WAIANAE, HI
      • 28 days ago

      For safety reasons

    • Kaniela wahilani KAPOLEI HI, HI
      • about 1 month ago

      it is important to me because i am a student of ke kula kaiapuni o Anuenue.


    Develop your own tools to win.

    Use the API to develop your own organizing tools. Find out how to get started.