The U.S. Army has withdrawn its proposal to install an irrigation system at the Pohakuloa Training Area on the island of Hawai`i to water new outplantings of native plants in an enclosed area at Kipuka `Alala, where a decade ago the Army built a computerized range complex. The Multi-Purpose Range Complex, or MPRC, has cost between $23 million and $30 million, but has yet to be used, because of concerns over rare plants.
Although the proposal may have seemed benign, it drew out the heavy artillery of environmentalists, who regard the project as needless and, worse, destructive of a rare, functioning ecosystem. According to Scott Henderson, an environmental officer with PTA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also expressed concerns over the project.
Instead of developing the irrigation system, Henderson told Environment Hawai`i, the Army will do several pilot studies in less sensitive areas of PTA and will try to develop a plan for outplantings of rare plants that takes into account the issues raised by critics of the Army’s draft environmental assessment for the project.
Rick Warshauer, a conservation biologist familiar with the area for more than two decades, provided comments on the Army’s draft environmental assessment in late January. The Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund also commented on the project, in a letter dated January 22.
Both took exception to the fact that the project would disturb an existing, reproducing ecosystem by installation of a 23-mile-long water pipe. According to the draft EA, a four-foot-wide corridor would be cleared along the length of the pipe, resulting, as Warshauer notes, in the removal of ground cover and vegetation in an area totaling more than 11 acres. “The ground cover and live vegetation consists of predominantly native species that comprise the limited habitat of numerous are native species which are scattered throughout the area. Despite a planned ‘reconaissance survey’ of the specific alignment, the clearance, installation, and use of the irrigation system would unavoidably damage the cryptic rare plants (especially the tiny regenerating individuals) and alter their habitat. The disturbance would foster the spread and establishment of the weeds that are purported to be controlled as part of the proposal.”
“Even more appalling,” Warshauer continues, “is that the main reason to install the massive irrigation system is ‘to supply water to rare plant species’ and to irrigate the proposed outplanting of rare and endangered plants. These rare species already occur there and are self-propagating on their own, despite the naturally arid environment. The naturally occurring species within the exclosure are proposed to be accompanied by plantings of other endangered species that occur elsewhere on PTA. Given the heterogeneity of habitats across PTA, no reasonable ecologist would expect the small exclosure to contain most of the rare species at PTA, and such a concentration would be quite artificial. That is, such a planting would be converting a natural ecological treasure into a garden — a travesty at best and a real distortion of the concept of ecological management.” The proposal is “inconsistent with the special nature of the area and will assuredly be damaging to the native ecosystem and endangered species within” the fenced enclosure the Army intends to irrigate.
Risks vs. Benefits
A similar theme was struck in the comments from Earthjustice, which also criticized the draft EA for failing to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act or the Army’s own regulations to implement that act. “Specifically,” writes Marjorie Ziegler, resource analyst for Earthjustice’s Honolulu office, “the EA fails to provide evidence that the benefits of the proposed action outweigh the risks. The EA does not adequately describe the need for such an elaborate water system in a native dry forest that has evolved over thousands of years in the absence of an irrigation system. The EA does not adequately describe or analyze the risks involved with the proposed action, including fragmentation of limited habitat and dry forest, additional corridors and pathways for alien weeds, and human disturbance associated with construction and maintenance of the water system.”
Nor, Ziegler continues, does the document place the proposed action in the context of the “bigger picture at PTA, including the mosaic of native ecosystems … and the cumulative impacts of training, game management, and other actions at PTA.” “Fencing and removing ungulates and weeds from Kipuka `Alala and other large areas at PTA would do far more to promote species conservation than the proposed action,” Ziegler notes.
Both Ziegler and Warshauer note that the proposal has emerged before the Army has concluded endangered species consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act — a development Warshauer describes as disturbing. Ziegler expresses her concern that the Army is proposing to initiate Section 7 consultation “after the proposed action has been implemented.” “A formal consultation process for the entire proposed action, and especially construction of the water system, must be completed before the proposed action is initiated,” she writes.
Similar concerns over the Army’s training activities at Makua Military Reservation on O`ahu have led the Army to suspend all activities there that could affect rare and endangered species until after meeting the requirements of NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. Ziegler encourages the Army to “follow suit at PTA.”
Warshauer concludes his comments by reminding the Army of the history of its poor stewardship of natural resources at PTA: “The only time I have seen significant change in natural resource management at PTA was in response to the MPRC [Multipurpose Range Complex] lawsuit by the late Lani Stemmermann. Ironically, this irrigation proposal is planned for the same area where she was able to stop extensive habitat alteration for construction some years ago.”
(For a more complete discussion of some of the issues at PTA, including Stemmermann’s lawsuit, please see the January 1997 issue of Environment Hawai`i.)
Control of Ungulates Encounters Delays
Warshauer also noted that the Army’s project was not addressing what he described as the real threats to rare plants: ungulates (pigs, goats, and sheep) and weeds. “Only the removal of the ungulates and selected weeds are necessary to enhance rare plant recovery and habitat maintenance,” he wrote. “An alternative action that would be effective and unobtrusive is to use the money [for the irrigation project] … to fence additional native vegetation in western PTA and to remove the ungulates within immediately.”
Up to a point, Henderson agrees with Warshauer: “Outplantings are not a cure-all. You’ve got to take care of the fact that the plants are getting munched by animals, and we have weed and fire problems as well,” he said in a phone interview.
The Army has built a fence to enclose 1,400 acres at Kipuka Kalawamauna. Many of the sheep and goats in the area left when construction activity disturbed them, Henderson said, but pigs, which are nocturnal, don’t seem to be as affected by human activity in the daytime. To remove the pigs, the Army installed a one-way gate in the fence and was able to draw most of the pigs out using bait (papayas, especially). The few remaining goats and sheep — Henderson thinks there may be up to 15 inside the fence — are resistant to the baiting program.
To get rid of these last few animals, the Army planned a staff hunt. However, discovery of unexploded ordnance in the fenced area has caused that hunt to be delayed. Now, Henderson says, the Army plans to undertake the hunt in early May.
A fence including part of Kipuka `Alala was just completed in late March, Henderson said. This one encloses 559 acres, about half of which is thought to be contaminated with unexploded ordnance. Henderson is expecting to encounter some of the same problems here with removal of goats and sheep as were encountered at Kipuka Kalawamauna. In this case, he said, the Army plans to try removing a few animals by helicopter, putting radio collars on them, and placing them back in the enclosure to serve as Judas goats. In this fashion, the Army hopes to be able eventually to locate and hunt down herds, rather than just isolated animals.
A second fence at Kipuka `Alala is to be built as part of the mitigation measures planned to offset disturbance of palila habitat that will occur as a result of the realigned Saddle Road. This fence, Henderson says, will enclose 3,700 acres — virtually the entire Multi-Purpose Range Complex when linked up with the first fence. The Army is to provide the funds to the National Park Service, which will actually build the fence.
Henderson said the Army was ready to go with this project, but delays in producing the record of decision for the Saddle Road environmental impact statement have pushed back the start date. Unless the funds are available by June 1, the Park Service cannot begin the project this fiscal year. Henderson said the expected completion of the record of decision won’t occur until after that date.
What this means for the second fence at Kipuka `Alala is that work probably won’t begin until well into the next federal fiscal year, which begins October 1.
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 9, Number 11 May 1999
Leave a Reply