The much-anticipated release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for large-capacity ferry vessels such as Hawai‘i Superferry was made public yesterday morning on the state Department of Transportation’s Web site. The comprehensive report details areas that would likely be affected
The much-anticipated release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement for large-capacity ferry vessels such as Hawai‘i Superferry was made public yesterday morning on the state Department of Transportation’s Web site.
The comprehensive report details areas that would likely be affected if the inter-island catamaran continued operating. Among the findings are a decline in natural resources and a disturbance to cultural activities.
But some residents question the significance of the study, which was mandated by the state Legislature in October 2007 after protests and lawsuits put Hawaii Superferry in the limelight.
“One word defines the EIS environmental draft: Irrelevant,” Rich Hoeppner, of the People for the Preservation of Kaua‘i, said yesterday. “The reason is because Act 2, by its own language, says that an EIS statement would not have any effect on the decisions to run the Superferry. In fact, I’m not even going to read the draft, because it will have no effect on operations.”
A written statement from Lori Abe, a Superferry spokesperson, says the company is “pleased” that the Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and officials are in the process of reviewing the draft.
“Mitigation measures proposed in the draft EIS are consistent with the operating standards and practices of Hawaii Superferry over the last year,” the statement says. “The draft EIS combined with the data from over nine months of reliable service and 708 voyages provides a clear picture of our commitment to responsible operations and environmental awareness. We remain committed to working with the state to address impacts raised by the draft EIS.”
The Superferry was able to continue sailing as the reportedly $1 million study was completed despite the potential of adverse effects.
Among the other environmental and cultural assessments made in the draft are a finding that both direct and indirect impacts would take place on each island it serves, including the possibility of a loss in activities such as fishing, surfing and diving, specifically influencing Nawiliwili and Kawaihae harbors, and an effect on the number of endangered humpback whales.
Other concerns cited in the study are an increase in traffic within the vicinity of all four harbors and an increase in inter-island dispersal of invasive species.
Among the few benefits cited in the study is that the vessel could provide a “superior” mode of transportation for disaster planning and emergency response.
Hoeppner said he is eagerly awaiting a final decision from the state Supreme Court which challenged the legality behind the ship’s operations in a hearing on Dec. 18.
He believes this will actually be the determining factor as to whether the Superferry will return to Kaua‘i.
The case questions the constitutionality behind Act 2 and whether environmental protocol was dodged.
“There is no doubt in my mind that they’re going to come back with saying Act 2 is unconstitutional. Then, they’ll go back to second base again after finding that the exemption was illegal,” Hoeppner said.
“Maybe it’s time to look at the illegality of everything and whether the exemption the DOT gave in Act 2 was legal and why Gov. Lingle approved it; there are many people who have been prosecuted for much less than that.”
The DOT, like Hawaii Superferry, had few comments on the release of the draft EIS.
“We’re emphasizing that the public review the draft and have 45 days to make public comments if they’re so inclined. We don’t want to start taking issue yet until the public has an opportunity to take a look at the EIS statement,” Michael Formby, deputy director of the DOT Harbors Division, said yesterday.
Hawaii Superferry says in its statement that “the summary of the draft EIS indicates that with proposed mitigation measures, adverse impacts can be substantially or fully mitigated.”
“The exception was a future Kahului West Harbor development, which is not currently part of the approved Harbor Improvement program,” the company says.
The Superferry’s controversial history began before it launched service between O‘ahu and Kaua‘i and Maui in August 2007, sailing in the face of a state Supreme Court ruling that an EIS should have been required by the state prior to the start of operations.
Protesters at Nawiliwili Harbor delayed the Alakai’s maiden voyage Aug. 26, 2007, and forced it to return to Honolulu without unloading its passengers the next day.
Now free of any legal barriers, the Superferry has not announced a timeline to resume service to Kaua‘i.
A second ship is expected within the next couple years to start operating between O‘ahu and the Big Island.
The public has until Feb. 23 to comment.
For more information on the study, visit hawaii.gov/dot/harbors.
• Coco Zickos, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 251) or czickos@kauaipubco.com
