Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 9, Number 5, 1 May 1992 — OHA spells out missile range concerns [ARTICLE]

OHA spells out missile range concerns

By Lynn Lee Kaua'i islanders are heatedly debating the launching of research missiles from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands on their island. In 1983 President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative program, called "the Stars Wars" program by the public, whieh was to be administered under the U.S. Army. In late 1989 the Army issued an environmental assessment declaring that there would be no negative environmental effects from the project and so an Environmental Impact Statement would not be necessary.

The Army's position drew considerable public criticism, and criticism from Gov. John Waihee and the Hawai'i Congressional delegates. Sen. Daniel Inouye, as chair of the Congressional subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, attached a condition to the Defense Appropriation Bill requiring the Army to prepare a full EIS. A draft of the EIS was completed in February. On March 24, the Army held a public hearing on Kaua'i to solicit information that could be incorporated into the final EIS. The Army asked OHA to comment on the draft statement. The following letter was sent by Richard K. Paglinawan, OHA administrator, to the Deputy Commander, U.S. Army Strategic Defense Command. In the letter Paglinawan speaks to the issues whieh eoneem OHA and the parts of the draft EIS that OHA feels need more complete explanatory information.

OHA letter to Army The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is concerned about the effect of this project on land use in the Mana area. Several hundred acres of Hawaiian Homes Trust land lie extremely close to the Pacific Missile Range Facility. Historically, this federally-created but stateadministered trust has lacked money and other resources to develop its land. Currently, a renewed effort is being made to make Hawaiian Homes iands available to Native Hawaiian trust beneficiaries. The safety hazard zone proposed for this project may affect the ability of Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) t0 develop these lands as anticipated. The land use section

of the draft EIS does not address this issue. We believe that a discussion of the safety hazard zone and its potential impacts on the development of DHHL lands should be included in the final EIS. The public property adjacent to the missile range is also a eoneem. This proberty is part of the public trust and is currently leased to Kekaha Sugar Company by the state of Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources. The draft EIS proposes that safety measures include a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the Pacific Missile Range Facility, the state DLNR and Kekaha Sugar Company to allow missile range security forces to keep the public and Kekaha Sugar Company personnel clear of the ground hazard area during eaeh launeh.

However, the lease between Kekaha Sugar and DLNR will end before this project ends. The conditions of the MOA will effectively restrict the use of this land to agriculture for a period longer than the length of the lease. This negative effect on land use options is not discussed in the draft EIS but should be included in the final EIS. The water supply for the missile range should be addressed. The laek of water in the Mana area has been a eoneem for many years. It is our understanding that the missile range obtains its water from the Kekaha Sugar Company. If the lease to Kekaha Sugar Company is not renewed will there be a supply of water for the missile range? Guaranteed public access to the beach areas of the missile range was a condition of the transfer of the property to federal control.

The draft EIS at page ES-6 states that public access to beach areas at the missile range will be restricted for about 56 days a year. This appears to be in contradiction to the information contained in the Zest 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment published on May 28, 1991, whieh states beach closure days for this schedule is a maximum of 238 days per year. This contradiction should be clarified in the final EIS and the cumulative effect of launches on beach closure clearly detailed. In addition the draft EIS details that "the maximum ESQD restriction denies the public access

to only 7.4 percent (3,215 feet) of the eight miles of available beach along PMRF and only 2 percent of the 22 miles of available public beach along western Kaua'i." It should be remembered that beach activities are the primary recreational activity of both the general public and the tourist population of Kaua'i. The 22 miles of public beach along Kauai's western coast is small compared to the public and commercial demand for beach related activities. The restriction of even 2 percent of the beach is significant and the socio-economic consequences of the additional demand on other beach areas should be discussed. The proposed mitigation concerning the endangered adder's tongue fern (Ophioglossum eoneinnum) is also of eoneem to OHA. On pages 4-30 of the draft EIS it is proposed that mitigation would include transplanting the fern to suitable habitat elsewhere within the missile range.

We strongly disagree that the transplanting of endangered species is acceptable mitigation. First, there is the question of whether or not the plant ean withstand the shock of transplanting. Second, even if the plant is able to survive, the habitat from whieh it has been removed has been artificially and perhaps irreversibly altered. The concept of protecting endangered species has a wider focus than the single individual plant. Preserving the habitat is equally important if our aim is to keep these plants viable for future generations. Artificially restricting endangered species to a few areas threatens their ability to adapt and evolve as part of the natural process. Finally, we are concerned with the cumulative effect of the hydrogen sulfide emissions on stratospheric ozone. The draft EIS offers no mitigation for hydrogen sulfide emissions. It says, on page 4-21, that "programmatic stratospheric chlorine contributions over an 1 l-year period would not accumulate above approximately 0.0001 percent of the total global ozone loss." However, this 0.0001 percent represents an increase to ozone depletion at a time when

continued on page 8

Kaua'i test range from page 7

there is a worldwide effort to reduce the amount of ozone depletion in the statosphere.

A story in the Feb. 17 issue of Time magazine, "The Ozone Vanishes," says that the Montreal Protocol, created in 1987, called for a 50 percent reduction in chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production by 1999. By 1990, the delegates were so alarmed by the rate of depletion that they agreed to a total phaseout of CFCs by the year 2000.

Although hydrogen sulfide emissions may not be considered CFCs, they unquestionably eontribute to ozone depletion. Since the focus of this issue is the depletion of global ozone we urge a more comprehensive discussion of this effect and the inclusion of mitigative measures in the final EIS.