March 13, 2009
FROM:
Hope Kallai
POB 655
Kilauea, HI 96754
and
The Sierra Club - Maui Group
Lance Holter, President
P.O. Box 791180
Paia, HI 96779
808-579-9802
TO:
Regulatory Branch (CEPOH-EC-R)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu
Building 230
Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440
RE:
Public Notice No. POH-2008-273
Date: December 10, 2008
Respond by: January 10, 2008
Kahului Bay, Kahului Commercial Harbor, Maui Island
Modification of the mooring system of the barge Manaiakalani
Statewide Large-Capacity Interisland High Speed Ferry
Applicant:
Harbors Division, Department of Transportation, State of Hawai‘i,
Request for Public Hearing and NEPA Consultation
Aloha USACE:
Mahalo for the opportunity to comment on POH-2008-273, even though there was no legal response time
possible due to the posting date error. Thank you for extending us two weeks to comment. The Harbors
Division, Hawai`i Department of Transportation is seeking to dredge 2,900 square feet of Kahului Bay to
modify the mooring system of the barge Manaiakalani at Kahului Harbor, navigable waters of the Pacific
Ocean which are U.S. Federal Submerged Lands, within the Federal Project Line (FPL) as identified by
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) in HA-201-140 June 23, 2007.
The proposed activity will provide a permanent mooring for the barge Manaiakalani which is used
during the loading and offloading of the new mode of high-speed inter-island, roll-on passenger vehicle
ferry (ROPAX) vessel operated by the Hawai`i Superferry Inc. (HSF), the Alakai and should be included
in the Statewide Large-Capacity Interisland Ferry Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared
for State of Hawai`i Department of Transportation Harbor Division in December 2008.
We are asking for full consideration of this major action through the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.)
including immediate consultation with the following appropriate agencies: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). It’s time to take the required “hard look” at this whole
project, and its’ state-wide cumulative, secondary, cultural, social and indirect impacts as required by
NEPA and solicit comments through the Public Hearing Process.
The proposed activity would permanently disturb approximately 2,900 square feet of accumulated
sediments, gravels, and cobbles of the Kahului harbor bottom at water depths from -32 to -38 feet below
mean low low water (MLLW) and installation of 1,130 feet of 3” mooring chain in 3 legs off Pier 2C,
each leg having a 15 ton sea anchor at the end and another mid-chain. Dredging and installation are
projected to take one month. Kahului Harbor is a navigable waterway. The majority (about 2/3rds) of the
proposed project impact disturbs Federal submerged land, see Federal Project Line (FPL) on USACE
Map HA201-140. Usage of the Manaiakalani and mooring is projected to be long-term, only to be
temporarily removed for dredging maintenance, i.e. permanent. Maniakalani is only used for the Hawai`i
Superferry vessel, the Alakai; setting the long term mooring is an enabling action of a project with
significant adverse impacts and must be considered as part of a larger, statewide action.
The exemptions and exclusions allowing operation of the Hawai`i Superferry Inc. have been granted in
error, as unanimously determined by the Hawai`i Supreme Court. The Corps must not rubber stamp
decisions made in error by other agencies and allow this project to continue without NEPA consult.
Failure to initiate consultation has been determined a NEPA violation.
2
Hawai`i has more endangered species per square mile than anywhere else on the planet. “Hawai`i has
more non-native pests than the rest of the U.S. combined.” DEIS 2.2 Appendix A. The USACE must
consider secondary, indirect and cumulative impacts to all the endangered and threatened species of
Hawai`i from the introduction of this new mode of rapid, interisland vehicular travel, as well as the
construction impacts of the mooring installation. There is great potential for invasive species transfer and
recommendations of wildlife agencies have not been honored.
In a letter to Ms. Lesley Matsumoto, HSF Project Manager for Belt Collins, Reference Number 2008-FA117, Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor for United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or the
Service), commenting on the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for Large-Capacity Ferry Vessel, noted that there would be “project related losses of marine
ecological functions as a result of the proposed modifications to the harbor,” continuing “We are
concerned that project plans to repair existing harbor facilities and dredge and fill operations could
result in the degradation or loss of coral reef resources that may occur within the footprint and
vicinity of the proposed project including live coral colonies and other marine animals and plants
that rely upon coral habitats for shelter, forage and reproduction. Also, we are concerned that
project-related suspension of fine sediments may settle on and smother established coral colonies,
algae meadows or sessile organisms that occur within the nearshore environment.”
“We recommend that project-related dredging, filling and construction operations be scheduled to
avoid the spawning period for most corals, which in Hawai`i is April through August.” He
continues “If a Federal agency is involved with funding, authorizing or completing a project that
may affect listed species, the Federal agency must request consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the
ESA.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should be contacted regarding the potential for the
proposed action to affect listed species under NMFS jurisdiction. In order to facilitate early resolution
of any potential conflicts between the proposed activities and endangered and threatened species, we
recommend early consultation with NMFS.
The Service considers the spread of non-native invasive species to be a major threat to threatened and
endangered species and other trust resources because of their potential to become established and alter the
existing terrestrial or aquatic ecosystem.
Construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials described in the
proposed action are potential pathways for the introduction and expansion of terrestrial and
aquatic non-native invasive species (i.e. microbes plants, vertebrates and invertebrates).
A more significant vector for the spread of invasive species is the operation of the Superferry.
Pathways for introduction and spread of non-native invasive species in the proposed action could
be, but are not limited to, construction equipment, personal protective equipment, delivery services,
foot traffic, vehicles/vessels and their contents, shipping material and other sources that provide
conditions for transport of non-native invasive species. He recommended developing a Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan (HAACP) to prevent attraction and introduction of non-native
species through potential harbor improvement and construction activities and the subsequent operation of
the HSF and management practices including procedures for disinfection pest-free storage, monitoring
methods, evaluation techniques and general guidelines for structural integrated pest management. “The
Service recommends that pest inspection and cleaning facilities be incorporated as part of the facility
improvements and long-term maintenance for all ports. There will be several risk factors associated with
the project and the large-capacity ferry operations. Sanitation will be an issue during construction,
3
receiving of supplies, moving construction equipment, and the movement of personal vehicles and goods
among the identified harbors.”
“Although many species are already established the Service would view actions that result in the
augmentation of existing non-native invasive species populations as a negative effect. Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) should be employed as a tool to prevent and control the introduction and
expansion of terrestrial and aquatic non-native invasive species into the adjacent areas from the harbors.
By addressing sanitation, accessibility for cleaning and pest inspection, and points of pest ingress and
harborage, this process would reduce the overall likelihood of a non-native invasive species becoming
established in the harbor facilities and exposing transport systems to this risk. Early detection monitoring
at all ports should be implemented to prevent populations of invasive pests from becoming established.”
The routine transport of passengers, personal vehicles and items between islands would create new
expedited pathways for the inadvertent or intentional transport of invasive species between
islands. A few notable examples (although far from an exhaustive list) include:
Pests:
Little fire ant (Wasmannia auropunctata)
Nettle caterpillar (Darna pailivita)
Miconia calvescens
Fountaingrass (Pennisetum setaceum) and numerous other weed seeds
Coqui frog
(Eleutherodactylus coqui)
Veiled chameleon (Chamaeleo calyptratus)
Eucalyptus canker (Coniorhyrium zuluense)
Red Algae (Acanthopora spicifera)
Pathways:
Potted nursery plants
Plant Parts
Vehicles and equipment
Clothing and outdoor equipment
Hunting dogs
Intentional transport of vertebrates or invertebrates for pets
Hull fouling
Impacts of new pathways are created from harbor and pier construction operating the Superferry
on the risk of spreading invasive species from islands where they are established to islands where
they are not.
As submitted in response to NOI of DEIS , included in 2.2 Appendix A-1-20 to A-1-24.
State-wide Indirect, Cumulative and Long term Impacts, as well as Cultural and Social must be fully
evaluated under the NEPA process. Only temporary short-term, construction impacts during installation
of the mooring array have been considered. If HSF operations are H-4 as they used for advertising, then
the mooring and Manaiakalani are a bridge for their interisland highway and must be considered as such.
In 2005 Ocean Advocates v the Corps, the importance of addressing cumulative impact was learned when
the Corps’ Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was determined to be inadequate; the EIS should
have been issued before permit given - in violation of NEPA. Regarding the FONSI: “This finding fails to
provide any reason, let alone a convincing one, why the Corps refrained from preparing an EIS.”
Regarding CORPS’ rationale: “This statement cannot possibly qualify as a fully informed and wellreasoned basis for failing to give more careful attention.” Summing up: “A patently inaccurate factual
contention can never support an agency’s determination that a project will have ‘no significant impact’ on
the environment.”
4
Specifications of Manaiakalani have been designed inadequate to the wave pattern of Kahului Harbor.
The Kahului Commercial Harbor 2030 Master Plan, Chapter 5 DEIS states:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conducted a wave climate and wave
response study in 2002 after the 2025 Master Plan was completed.3 Wave data had
been collected between November 1993 and May 1995 using a directional array gage
located in approximately 48-foot (15-m) depth outside the harbor entrance and nondirectional
pressure sensors inside the harbor. The gage outside the harbor is part of a
network of gages operated by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
The results of the study indicated that the harbor is exposed to wind and waves from
the north to northeast directions. The island of Maui shelters the harbor from wave energy
from the northwest and east, and fringing reefs extending from the coast both east and west
of the harbor help to further restrict the directional exposure of the harbor entrance.
Depths to bottom within the harbor range from a few feet to greater than 30 feet (10 m).
Study findings show that the wave climate at Kahului Commercial Harbor exhibits
distinct seasonal characteristics. Waves generated by winter storms in the Northern
Pacific Ocean impact the harbor. High wave energy typically occurs seasonally from
October through April, and the summer season (May through September) is typically
characterized by low wave energy.
Mean annual wave height for the harbor was observed to be approximately three feet (1 m),
with a maximum of eight feet (2.5 m). This is lower than the offshore wave climate, which is
expected due to the natural and constructed protection of the harbor from dominant offshore wave
directions. The study indicated a strong tendency toward relatively long wave periods from the
northwest and shorter periods from the east.
The Manaiakalani barge (280’ long x 105 ’wide) was constructed only for a 1.43 foot wave. That’s
about 17 inches. They have sustained damage because they were not designed for the average waters of
Kahului Bay, not because of severe storm damage. Every time the lines broke free, they were replaced
with larger lines until the pier was heavily damaged. Mean annual wave height for the harbor is 3-8 feet,
as determined by the corps in Wave Climate and Wave Response, 2025 Plan, Kahului Harbor, Maui,
Hawaii, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. June 2002. Not
hard information to find, yet the barges were constructed only to 17 inch wave specifications at
considerable public expense to repair. Since installation in August, 2007 the barge, has sustained over 3.5
million dollars in damages (in mid- Sept 2007, mid- Oct 2007, mid- Nov 2007, early Dec 2007, midJan. 2008, early Apr 2008) and substantial tug boat expenses. In the Phase II Report to the Governor,
the Auditor found:
After the November 2007 incident, the barge’s internal framing was buckled and twisted, brackets were
tripped and buckled, and the side shell plate was dented. Also, the fender system was extensively damaged.
Following heavy surge conditions and high winds in December 2007, the barge’s hand railings and
stanchions were bent and fractured, and the access ladder was damaged. When asked about the barge
damage, Healy Tibbitts responded that “the barge was damaged when weather conditions exceeded the
mooring system operational limits” and “the barge was not moved away from the pier in time to prevent
damage.”
5
To repair the damages to the Manaiakalani, the state requested an exemption from normal state bidding
process:
The Manaiakalani was not designed to be used with a tug boat holding it off the pier. It was not
designed for the wash from the four engines of the Alakai. Perhaps the decision to construct the barge
system was made too hastily, and to the wrong wave specifications. Let’s hope HTBI, who is “very
6
familiar with surge and wave conditions within the harbor and pier” has become familiar with the wave
conditions determined by the Corps to be average conditions of the harbor.
The barge/ramp decision seems to have been made hastily and in confusion, as found by Marion Higa,
Auditor, in Performance Audit on the State Administration’s Actions Exempting Certain Harbor
Improvements to Facilitate Large Capacity Ferry Vessels from the Requirements of the Hawai`i
Environmental Impact Statements Law: Phase II; A Report to the Governor and the Legislature of the
State of Hawai‘i, Report No. 08-11, December 2008:
The environmental exemption process was invalidated by an erroneous opinion by the Office of
Environmental Quality Control
Although not bound by statute or regulations, DOT chose to consult with
the OEQC director on the exemption for harbor improvements related
to the Hawai`i Superferry project. On November 15, 2004, the Harbors
Division sent a consultation letter to the OEQC seeking concurrence that
the department’s proposed harbor improvements to accommodate the
Superferry qualified for exemption. (A copy of the letter is shown in
Appendix C.) The consultation letter provided a general description of
the planned harbor improvements at Honolulu, Kawaihae, and Kahului
Harbors. In regards to Kahului Harbor, the letter described plans to
create a notch in Pier 2 that was to accommodate the ferry.
In her November 23, 2004 response to the Harbors Division, the thenOEQC director stated that the department had the authority to exempt
the proposed actions as requested. (A copy of the letter is shown in
Appendix D.) However, unlike county agency and department officials,
the then-OEQC director never received a copy of the second consultation
letter, which changed the proposed harbor improvements at Kahului
from a notched pier to the barge-and-ramp system that was eventually
implemented. On February 15, 2005, the department sent to its major
harbor users the notice of its decision to use OEQC-exempt barges with
ramps. The letter did not inform users that the OEQC had concurred
with the exemption of a notched pier at Kahului and not the barge-and ramp
system. More importantly, the department did not inform the
OEQC of its change in plans.
The then-deputy director of harbors said the opinion of the OEQC
director carried “significant weight” on his decision to exempt the
proposed harbor improvements. However, her opinion was based on
incorrect information. Therefore, the OEQC’s November 23, 2004
response letter should not have been considered in the department’s
exemption decision, let alone been given “significant weight.”
Internal emails and documents show the State viewed its environmental
review responsibilities in regards to the Hawai`i Superferry Inc.
project as being limited to the harbor improvements. Therefore, they
believed that Hawai`i Superferry Inc. was responsible for conducting an
environmental review of ferry operations, including possible secondary
impacts and cumulative effects. In fact, despite knowing that Hawai`i
Superferry Inc.’s operations could have widespread impacts and that it
had earlier refused to do an environmental assessment, the department
took a passive role and allowed Hawai`i Superferry Inc., to conduct an
7
environmental study of its operations without department oversight.
Once DOT determined that harbor improvements were exempted from an environmental assessment,
department officials believed that they had fulfilled their environmental obligations
The then-deputy director of harbors acknowledges that state officials
did not require Hawai`i Superferry Inc. to address secondary impacts
or cumulative effects, that these were not imposed by the State as a
condition. He also said the State and the Hawai`i Superferry Inc. did
not engage in any discussion as to what defines secondary impacts and
cumulative effects. He said he considered raising concerns expressed by
the counties in discussions with Hawai`i Superferry Inc. but ultimately
he decided not to. He added that, “We were aware of what they were
planning on doing and what was done. They [Hawai`i Superferry] gave
us assurances that this would be addressed.”
When asked if the State was obligated to address the operational impacts
since Hawai`i Superferry Inc. was unwilling to address them, the
department’s then-deputy director of administration replied he could not
recall anyone framing the issue that plainly. He reported that “our focus
was more on that Hawai`i Superferry needed to do it and to pressure
them to provide an operational plan. Their operational plan would
describe what Hawai`i Superferry was going to do and how they were
going to address it [operational issues].”
Hawai`i Superferry Inc. officials submitted their plan detailing their
environmental commitments in February 2007, two years after the
department exempted the harbor improvements. They submitted a
document to the governor that, among other things, outlined what the
company had done or planned to do to address the various environmental
concerns. The document noted that Hawai`i Superferry Inc. had
undertaken and commissioned studies, sought public input, and crafted
policies on issues relating to the operation of the ferry service between
the four main Hawaiian Islands. The document also mentioned that this
work was ongoing.
Hawai`i Superferry Inc. worked with whale researchers and other
experts to develop its whale avoidance policy and procedures, which
were approved on May 12, 2005, by the Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. The company
also developed policies and procedures to help control the movement
of invasive species in collaboration with the state Department of
Agriculture. Hawai`i Superferry Inc. also completed a traffic impact
study for each harbor. All of this work demonstrated that the company
was aware of the impacts of the operation of its ferry and the issues
raised by the public.
However, most of the policies and procedures described in the document
were not finalized and were not developed in accordance with the EIS
rules and laws. The document does not address areas such as cumulative,
significant, or secondary impacts the Hawai``i Superferry Inc. operations
8
may have on the environment. The Hawai`i Superferry Inc. document
also noted that the company participated in several levels of community
outreach activities and public consultation. However, the dates when the
advisory boards were created and when the DOT public meetings were
held all took place more than a year after the department exempted the
harbor improvements in February 2005.
By Providing Unusual Accommodations to a Single Business, State Sets a Troubling Precedent
On September 9, 2005, DOT awarded a $38.5 million contract to design
and build barges and vehicle ramp systems for the statewide inter-island
ferry system to Healy Tibbitts Builders, Inc. (Healy Tibbitts). The department’s
contract required Healy Tibbitts to design, build, and install a barge system consisting of the
barge, mooring system, and fenders.
The contract also required that all of these systems be extremely reliable
and operate through all kinds of weather conditions, including storm
surge conditions, occasional high wave action, occasional high winds,
and rain. The barges at Honolulu and Kahului are each 280.5 feet long
and Kawaihae’s barge is 201.8 feet long. Honolulu’s and Kawaihae’s
barges are 75.5 feet wide while Kahului’s is 105 feet wide.
A mooring system is used to secure the barge by means of cables,
anchors, or lines to bollards on the piers in each harbor as shown in
Exhibit 2.2. Fenders are required between the barge and pier to absorb
energy from barge motions due to surge waves and high wind. Failure to
do so can result in damage to the barge and the pier.
Barge and ramp decisions were made hastily and in confusion (see attached).
The state Department of Transportation's aggressive pursuit to exempt Hawaii Superferry from an
environmental review came after a late December 2004 meeting with Superferry executives and
Bob Awana, Gov. Linda Lingle's then-chief of staff, state records show.
The stripped-down plans for a barge and ramp for Superferry at Kahului's Pier 2 were seen by the
department as interim, a fallback position to qualify for an exemption and meet the project's target
launch date. Yet Superferry was so concerned about a trigger that executives pushed the
department not to mention the preferred improvements at the harbor.
Fukunaga, in an e-mail to a staffer less than two weeks before the final decision to exempt the
project from environmental review, wrote: "Garibaldi called me, he received his letter today and is
concerned that identifying both the preferred improvements and the alternatives establishes a
linkage and requires our doing the environmental reviews for everything.
Staff at the state Department of Transportation told Hawaii Superferry in October 2004 that a
statewide environmental assessment would be required for the new interisland ferry service. But
Superferry executives resisted and, within two days, scaled back the project in a calculated attempt
to get an exemption from the state's environmental review law, state records show.... State path set
in '04 Awana, ferry talks, by Derrick DePledge, Sunday, January 27, 2008. See attached
documents.
9
Decisions were made by threats of “deal-breaking” and environmental assessment avoidance, not best
management practices based upon public safety and environmental concerns. The HSF and applicant
were aware of Corps permitting requirements and avoided fulfilling their legal obligations. The HSF
company has operated in capricious disregard for NEPA and legal obligations of their permits and loan
obligations.
Very early in the history of this project decisions were made to avoid NEPA because of the predictable
concern about impacts to marine mammals. The Alakai can travel at 40 knots: about 19 meters/second.
The semi-swath, wave-piercing catamaran hull design has an advance acoustic warning of about 100
yards for marine mammals and turtles. Whales have a warning of about 3 seconds to avoid a ship big as a
40’ tall football field, with an expected ship/whale strike lethality rate of 100%.
Hawaii is the wintering area for about 57% of the Pacific humpback whale population; the waters
surrounding the Hawaiian Islands are sensitive and essential breeding, calving and nursing habitats for an
international population of whales. The Hawaiian archipelago is home to 22 species of breeding seabirds,
three of which are endemic to the islands. Presently 75 % of known Hawaiian seabirds are extinct or
threatened with extinction and listed on the Federal Endangered Species List (USFWS 1985).
The following species are protected under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act:








Humpback Whale
Sperm Whale
Fin Whale
Hawaiian Monk Seal
Blue Whale
Sei Whale
Bryde’s whale
North Pacific right whale
Megaptera novaeangliae
Physeter macrocephalus
Balaenoptera physalus
Monachus schauinslandi
Balaenoptera musculus
Balaenoptera borealis
Balaenoptera edeni
Eubalaena japonica
The following turtles are offered endangered species protection
 Hawksbill turtle
Eretmochelys imbricate
 Leatherback turtle
Dermochelys coriacea
 Loggerhead turtle
Caretta caretta
 Olive ridley
Lepidochelys olivaceae
The following turtles are listed as threatened and offered protection under ESA:
 Green sea turtle
Chelonia mydas
The federally-listed species under the Endangered Species Act have civil and criminal penalties for
violations. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.) establishes protection
and conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
Hawaii Superferry must have a valid Incidental Take Permit (ITP) and Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) for all listed Endangered Species. Any impacts to these protected species must be monitored,
tracked and mitigated through the ITP and HCP process.
10
The following species are afforded protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act:

















Blainville’s beaked whale
Bottlenose dolphin
Cuvier’s beaked whale
Dwarf sperm whale
False killer whale
Melon-headed whale
Pantropical spotted dolphin
Pygmy killer whal
Pygmy sperm whale
Risso’s dolphin
Rough-toothed dolphin
Short-finned pilot whale
Spinner dolphin
Striped dolphin
Fraser’s dolphin
Longman’s beaked whale
Minke whale
Mesoplodon densirostris
Tursiops truncatus
Ziphius cavirostris
Kogia simus
Orcinus orca
Peponocephala electra
Stenella attenuate
Feresa attenuata
Kogia breviceps
Grampus griseus
Steno bredanensis
Globicephala macrorhynchus
Stenella longirostris
Stenella coeruleoalba
Legenodelphis hosei
Indopacetus pacificus
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), section 101(a) (5) (A-D), as amended (16 U.S.C.
1371(a) (5)), provides for allowing the incidental, but not intentional, taking, of small numbers of marine
mammals. In 1981, Congress amended the MMPA to provide for incidental take authorizations (ITA) of
small numbers of marine mammals for maritime activities on species not federally listed under the ESA.
These incidental take authorizations, also known as Letters of Authorization (LOA) must be published in
the Federal Register. In 1994, MMPA section 101(a)(5) was amended to establish an expedited process to
apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, referred
to as Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHA). The HSF must apply for IHA’s for every Marine
Mammal (not listed as Endangered which required an ITP) in the waters of Hawai`i.
Under the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, Marine Mammal Harassment is statutorily defined as, any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which—


(Level A Harassment) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in
the wild; or,
(Level B Harassment) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in
the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the potential to injure
a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.
Approaching a humpback whale closer than 100 yards is harassment of this federally listed
endangered species and must be avoided. According to the Master of the Vessel’s logs, the HSF Alakai
has had at least 4 near misses with endangered humpback whales and must be considered as an impact
resultant to usage of the mooring. There is no monitoring for impacts to dolphins or turtles or monk seals
as required by NEPA, ESA and MMPA, all found in Kahului Harbor.
NEPA consideration of potential impacts to threatened and endangered Hawaiian avian species must
include: `Alae `ula, Hawaiian moorhen, (Gallinula chloropus sanvicensis); `Alae ke`oke`o , Hawaiian
coot, (Fulica alai); `Ae`o, Hawaiian stilt, (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni); Koloa maoli, Hawaiian
11
duck, (Anas wyvilliana); Nene, Hawaiian goose, (Branta sandvicensis); `Ua`u, Dark rumped petrel,
(Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis); `A`o, Newell’s shearwater, (Puffinus auricularis newelii);
`alala, Hawaiian Crow, (Corvus hawaiiensis); Band-rumped storm petrel, (Oceanodroma castro); Manu
o ku, White tern, (Gygis alba rothschildi); `io, Hawaiian hawk, (Buteo solitarius ); Short-tailed
albatross, (Phoebastria albastrus); `akohekohe, Crested Honeycreeper, (Palmeria dolei); Nihoa
Millerbird, (Acrocephalus familiaris kingi); Kauai Nukupu`u, Kauai nukupu`u, (Hemignathus lucidus
hanapepe); Maui Nukupu`u, Maui nukupu`u, (Hemignathus lucidus affinis); `O`o `a`a, Kauai `O`o,
(Moho braccatus); `O`u o`u (Psittirostra psittacea); Palila, palila, (Loxioides bailleui); Maui
Parrotbill, (Pseudonestor xanthophrys); Po`ouli, po`ouli, (Melamprosops phaeosoma); oloma`o,
Molokai Thrush, (Myadestes lanaiensis rutha); kama`o, large Kauai Thrush, (Myadestes myadestinus),
puaiohi, small Kauai Thrush, (Myadestes palmeri).
The following birds are offered protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Eurasian Skylark,
(Alauda arvensis); House Finch, (Carpodacus mexicanus); Northern Cardinal, (Cardinalis cardinalis);
Kolea, Pacific Golden Plove, (Pluvialis fulva); Band-rumped Storm-Petrel, (Oceanodroma castro);
White-tailed Tropicbird, (Phaethon lepturus); Wandering Tattler, (Heteroscelus incanus); Bristle-thighed
Curlew, (Numenius tahitiensis); Pueo, Hawaiian Shorteared Owl, (Asio flammeus sandwichensis).
The endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasirus cinereus semotus), and Blackburne’s sphinx moth
(Manduca blackburni) are found in the Kahului Harbor area and must be considered under NEPA.
The HSF claims to have taken care of the need to mitigate marine mammal impact at a “higher level” of
NMFS in July, 2004 (see attached). This cannot be allowed and deserves explanation.
Earlier this year the $1 billion Navy warship USS Port Royal ran aground in 20’ of water for 78 hours
south of Honolulu Airport Initially, the Navy said that the site consisted only of sand and rocks.
"Although initial reports indicated that the ship had grounded on a rock and sand bottom, our subsequent
surveys have shown that there is in fact coral reef," said Department of Land and Natural Resources
Director Laura Thielen in a joint news release with the Navy. In addition, the Navy says now that 7,000 not 5,000 - gallons of waste water were dumped while the ship was aground Feb. 5-9. The Public Notice
POH 2008-273 states “Available geotechnical data indicate sediments in the proposed installation area are
disturbed and composed of volcanic deposits and marine and terrestrial sediments. The bathymetry is
relatively flat and ranges between minus-32 and minus-38 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW).
Coral reefs, coral colonies, and seagrass beds are absent where anchors and chain are to be installed.” It is
difficult to tell if coral cobbles are to be found in the 2,900 square feet of proposed dredge area, not just
the chain area. In a June 6, 2008 DEIS response, Skippy Hau, DLNR Aquatic Biologist questioned “Is
dredging still planned to remove coral areas? And if removed, what will be the impact on shoreline
erosion and large waves allowed to break at the shoreline?” DLNR thinks there are corals present. Let’s
not repeat the Port Royal lesson. Coral beds must be correctly identified and mapped antecedent to any
impacting actions. Even if the harbor is a disturbed environment, it still supports many native species
including green sea turtles.
NEPA requires a comprehensive look at the impacts of federal actions on the “human environment” – the
natural and physical environment and its relationship with human culture including ecological, aesthetic,
historic, cultural, economic, social, or public health, and the comprehensive impacts to the human
environment and the relationship of people with that environment whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.
This proposed dredging project enables the statewide large-capacity, high speed interisland ferry to
operate and must be considered as one part of a larger project with statewide impacts and must be
included in the DEIS. The Public Notice POH 2008-273 foresees no impact on Cultural or Historic
Properties, but does not consider impact to Cultural Practices. Paddling, fishing and surfing are
12
traditional cultural practices of significant importance to native Hawaiian people and many other
minorities and must not be regarded as recreation. Two canoe clubs are located in Kahului harbor: Na
Kai 'Ewalu and Hawaiian, and Lae'ula O Kai occasionally uses the harbor for practice. Canoe races are
held on Saturdays from the May through the end of July. Race course flags are set about 40 feet away
from Pier 2C and need to be set in shallow water suitable for a regular person to free dive. There are 3
normally scheduled summer canoe regattas (and 4 or 5 winter high school regattas) but any time the
summer surf poses a danger, the summer regattas are moved to the Harbor which is flat in the summer.
Adverse impacts must be considered to the important cultural practice of canoe paddling, including spillover impacts of even temporary practice relocation. Adverse timing must be mitigated by open discussion
with potentially impacted individuals and clubs, not just the State Office of Historic Preservation, Office
of Hawaiian Affairs, Hui Malama I Na Kupuna, and the `Aha Kiole Advisory Council. Paddling is a
kuleana; a family, community and cultural responsibility to honor, preserve and practice and more
importantly, to teach to the younger generations. The Corps has an underlying kuleana (through NEPA)
of protecting the cultural resources and cultural practices so traditions can be perpetuated. Dredging is a
real, predictable adverse impact to the traditional practice of canoe paddling and must be given full NEPA
consideration.
There is a great deal of fishing in Kahului harbor, including traditional subsistence fishing. In fact, the
proposed Pier 5 Superferry dock will eradicate the kupuna fishing hale located on the West breakwater.
There is no way to mitigate the removal of subsistence fishing and the wealth of knowledge held by the
fisherfolks. Impacts to limu gathering and fishing, including providing fish for the Maui Ocean Center,
must also be considered, even in a disturbed harbor environment. Sedimentation impacts from dredging
must not occur during sensitive spawning and rearing times and traditional gathering times. While
surfing in a commercial harbor is sometimes a management issue, it still exists and existed prior to the
commercialization of Kahului Bay. One of the most famous surfers, Eddie Aikau, learned to surf in
Kahului Bay. Surfers have their own breaks and feel very proprietary about them and any projected
change. Cultural and traditional practices must be given full NEPA consideration, with recommendations
by (live) appropriate cultural practitioners.
The Auditor found that the Manaiakalani was built in China, in violation of the Jones Act. Shopping
overseas for barges was suggested by Marshall Ando, Design Engineer of HAR/HIDOT, in a letter on
January 4, 2005. Legal implications of the permanent mooring of a foreign made vessel must be
considered. Usage of the Manaiakalani for commerce must be considered. Safety of the Manaiakalani
must be considered, especially after the extensive damage it has already sustained, and the safety of the
rest of the harbor and harbor users must be considered.
An operating criteria for the MARAD loan, the PUC permit and Act 2 is that HSF be in compliance with
all federal and state laws. The HSF does not have an ITP, IHP or any HCP for any endangered species, in
violation of NEPA. The Alakai has never had NOAA Marine Mammal observers, as required by Act 2,
A-1. Operation of the Alakai is in conflict with management practices (13 knot speed; full stop if whale
within 100 yards) of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. Proposed
dredging intends to disturb Federal Submerged Lands; NEPA consult must begin immediately. The
Contingent Cat-X’es (Categorical Exclusion/Categorical Exemption) allowing this project have been
granted in error. It’s time for the Corps to correct these mistakes.
Hawaii Superferry spent $210,000 lobbying for federal money to install ramps on its second high-speed
catamaran, which make the ship more usable for transporting heavy military vehicles. The second vessel
of HSF’s two ferry fleet, the yet un-named Hull A616, has stern mount ramps (see attached plans), for
vehicle loading and offloading, making the use of ramps and barges obsolete. The HSF plans to re-fit the
Alakai with stern mount ramps making the barge Manaiakalani unnecessary. Hull A616 is completed and
expected to be delivered to Hawai`i soon, equipped with stern-mounted ramps financed by United States
13
Department of Defense, National Defense Features (NDF). Discussion has been for the second ship to be
used for the O`ahu to Maui route while the Alakai is re-fitted with stern-ramps. Serious consideration
must be given to setting a mooring for a barge that will not be necessary. There is no reason to carve up
the ocean floor for a mooring that will not be needed.
Thank you for your considerations and time extension, and for starting the NEPA process immediately to
take a hard look at this project.
Hope Kallai
and
Lance Holter
The Sierra Club – Maui Group
Attachments :
Hull A616 alterations
Superferry Docs FOIA
Superferry Docs FOIA Part 2
(found in
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2008/Jan/06/SF010608.pdf
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2008/Jan/27/superferryDocs.pdf
Bcc:
NOAA
NMFS
USFWS
USEPA
14