Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0265.001 1996-1998 rzeceive~ 'time---/._ D.Sbnd--- 6 Dote_~p, ~ 1.'i~l 1 Count' Councl~l Friends ofHamakua Councilman Dominic Yagong Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii Hawaii Cotuiry Building 25 Auptu~i Street Hilo, HI, 96760 llear Mr. Yagong: We would like to tklank you for your letter of March 27, 1997 (and the attadunents) inviting us to anwer questions you posed concerning the Oji/Marubeni Letter of Intent with the County of Hawaii. We would like to answer your questions in the order they were given: 1. Whether or not our organization supports the proposed project? We do not support this project at all. We feel eucalypt monoculture tree plantations are tremendously destructive of the soil, air, and water quality in the communities they are inflicted upon. We feel that there are very few if any benefits to the people of the Hamakua area in going forward with this Letter of Intent, and in fact there will be many destructive impacts to the community if this lease is signed. 2. Do we have a specific concern about the projector the language of the Icase? Please refer to the attached briefing sheet based on our research fors ep cifics on our concerns. Simply stated, we are concerned that a eucalypt monoculture tree plantation in the Hamakua area could result in 10-20 years in destruction of the fertility of the soil, accompanied by massive erosion, contamination of nearshore ocean waters by sediment and agricultural chemicals, changes in the water table balance, a noxious eucalyptus "weed" problem, impacts on or loss of the existing tourist industry, lowering of property values and associated impact on the real estate market in Hamakua, massive deposits of insecticides, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides in all sorts of places plus liberation of some currently inactive ones that are dormant in the soil, and last but not least, forest fires in an area that has never llad problems with them before. 3. Would we consider this a wise investment economically? We cannot answer for the investors, Oji/Marubeni. We feel it is a very poor investment for the community. We have been told that we will get about 44 to 75 jobs from the projected 28,000 acres that Oji/Marubeni considers a minimum for this operation, but we may get more toxic chemicals and community impacts than we ever l;anuc liw ~o I P^lle I(o. ~ j~ P013ox 1060, Honnkaa, HI 96727-1060 lte[. TU: had when the cane company employed nearly 1,000 people on a much smaller area. It is not economical for the community to have to pay so much for so few jobs. 4. Do we have any environmental concerns regarding this project? Yes, many. We are concerned that a eucalypt monoculture tree plantation in the Hamakua area could bring problems including but not limited to: destruction of the fertility of the soil, massive erosion, contamination of ocean waters, changes in the water table balance, a eucalyptus "weed" problem, loss of the tourist industry, impacts on the real estate market in Hamakua, massive deposits of insecticides, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides in our community, forest fires, toxic groundwater in our wells, low employment for the amount of impact on the community, noise problems associated with the chippers, logging trucks creating a road hazard, and changes in the very nature of the Hamakua area from agricultural to industrial. Also, please see attached briefing sheet. 5. Do we support the Administration proposal to utilize these lands in the forestry industry or do we have alternative proposals for the 4,400 acres? We do not support the Administration proposal. It should be called what it is- a eucalyptus monoculture tree plantation project. Do not try to fool people with words like forestry when there are no forests involved- just massive stands of an agricultural commodity that will be sprayed numerous times, burned to clear land, and clear-cut when harvesting. The Administration needs to open this County land up to new proposals which would benefit rather than harm the communities involved. These are public lands, and their usage should be of benefit to the surrounding communities. Friends of Hamakua calls for an immediate deferral of the Oji/Marubeni Letter of Intent to the County while the County and the communities involved come up with alternate uses of this land which are acceptable and beneficial to the communities in the Hamakua area. Sincerely, Friends of Hamakua Facts about Eucalypt Monoculture Tree Plantations Agricultural Problems: Eucalyptus monoculture tree plantations have problems of an agricultural nature inherent in their basic setup and design. Chief aznong these are the following: 1. Eucalypt plantations are usually plazited of two to three species of tree. They are single-age and similar-species crops, and have little resistance to disease or pest infestations. They are very susceptible targets because there is such a large concentration of the species in a small area. When a disease or pest infestation strikes a eucalypt monoculture plantation there is only one option open to the owners- aerial spraying of the plantation to kill the disease or pest infestation. Ground spraying does not work on 50-foot tall trees for obvious reasons. This spraying, which will occur eventually, will introduce further unknown and dangerous toxic insecticides, fungicides, and pesticides into our community. 2. The leaf mat covering of the ground that occurs under the trees in a eucalypt monoculture tree plantation produces an undesirable function- it acts as a waterproof barrier and prevents a portion of the rainwater that previously reached the soil from doing so. This results in changed runoff patterns, changes in stream activity, and changes in the groundwater makeup in affected areas. 3. The trees themselve use huge amounts of water. In many areas in the world where eucalypt monoculture plantations exist, there has been a significant lowering of the water table. Wells have run dry and the level of streams and rivers has been reduced by half in some areas. In a drought, this could reduce available water to an extreme extent and possibly lead to a situation with tinder-dry trees in which forest fires could occur. 4. As with sugar cane, at harvesting there are additional water- and soil-related effects such as compacting of the soil by the heavy machinery used for harvesting, increased soil erosion due to the roads and exposed soil produced by the removal of the trees, and the increase in the amounts of sediment lost from the eucalyptus monoculture plantation and deposited into offshore waters by the runoff, with its attendant effects on fisheries and water recreational activities. 5. The most desirable type of soils to plant a eucalyptus monoculture plantation on are virgin rainforest soils. These usually produce 6 to 9 crop rotations before the soil is exhausted and needs to be either abandoned or heavily (and expensively) chemically fertilized. On already depleted soils such as old sugar cane lands, the number of crop rotations before the soil is completely exhausted can be as low as 2 or 3, and even as low as a single rotation in unusual cases. This brings up the possibility that these lands may only be used for 7 to 20 years and then abandoned for all agricultural purposes because the soil's fertility is totally exhausted and cannot be brought back with any economical means. 6. In spite of representations by the agroforestry companies that the species used will produce timber for sawmills and value-added activities, it is not true. These species of eucalyptus need to be grown up to 12 to 18 years, (an additional 4 to 10 years beyond the time frame the companies are referring to now), to create the size of logs that are normally called "marketable timber", that is, timber that can be used for quality lumber and plywood. With the current schedules that are being proposed they are talking about pulp timber, that is, timber which can only be chipped and made into pulp because it has no other value. The other possibility is that this timber could be made into low-grade plywood or "medium density fiberboard" (MDF) also known as particle board. 7. As many residents know who live anywhere near an old sugar cane field that is near a section of eucalyptus trees, the trees spread like mad. In 6' tall second-growth cane fields in the Hamakua area, there are eucalyptus trees out into the cane 75- 100 fr after the cane land has laid fallow only two to three years. This brings up the specter of eucalyptus as a weed and. the possibility that eucalypt monoculture plantations will pose a significant weed control problem to farmers and ranchers whose fields are near them. 8. Eucalyptus tree root systems go 15-20 feet down into the ground (and sometimes more depending on the nature of the soil), and could bring toxic chemicals from sugar cane days (that may be relatively safely suspended 5-20 ft below the surface now) up into the eucalyptus trunk, bark, leaves, and branches. A common practice when harvesting these plantations is to limb the trees and burn the limbs and leaves on the ground to eliminate the slash. If these tonic chemicals from the cane days get into the trees, burning the limbs will certainly liberate these poisons to spread more easily through the community. 9. When these trees get cut, they get CUT. They are all harvested at roughly the same time, leaving the community with aclear-cut that looks truly repulsive. We rely on tourism in such a big way in Hawau that this would be a stupid risk to take. Do we want to take the chance that we could damage or destroy an existing industry that is relatively non-polluting and produces thousands of jobs, only to replace it with a hugely polluting industry that produces very few jobs? Tourists may have second thoughts about visiting an area where they will be breathing smoke from timber burns or aerially sprayed agricultural chemicals. 10. To sum it all up, there is a distinct possibility that a eucalyptus monoculture plantation in the Hamakua area could result in 10-20 years in total destruction of the fertility of the soil, accompanied by massive erosion, contamination of nearshore ocean waters by sediment and agricultural chemicals, changes in the water table balance, a noxious eucalyptus "weed" problem, impacts on or loss of the existing tourist industry, massive deposits of insecticides, herbicides, pesticides and fundicides in all sorts of places plus liberation of some currently inactive ones that are dormant in the soil, and last but not least, forest fires in an area that has never had problems with them before. Public Problems: Eucalyptus monoculture tree plantations have problems that are inherent in their basic setup and design, that affect the communities around them. Chief among these are the following: Public Health Concerns: 1. The agricultural practices used by euualyptus monoculture plantations are dangerous to human health. During the aerial spraying of many different types of toxic chemicals during the crop cycle of a eucalyptus monoculture plantation, there is a significant likelihood of widespread public exposure to these toxins. All of these agricultural chemicals contain "inerts" -ingredients can be up to three times as toxic as the actual listed "active ingredient". These "inerts" do not have to be tested for toxicity because of the laxuess of federal laws governing their labeling and use. These inerts are more dangerous than the active ingredients. These aerially sprayed chemicals "drift" during application. They are not heavy- they are lightweight aerosol droplets much like fog that are affected by even light winds. The chemical company literature states much lower drift distances than that shown by independent research. Independent tests have shown drift distances from aerial spraying to be as far as 3,000 meters from the field sprayed (which also was the furthest distance tested- so they don't luiow if it drifrs farther than that). Ground spray can drift up to 1,000 meters from the fields sprayed. A minimum of 20'% to a maximum of 81% of aerial spray drifts off the spray site, and up to 40% of ground spray can drifr off the spray site. Testing of the "active ingredients" is done on the laboratory equivalent of a healthy mature human being for a short test period, and does not take into account the possible effects on other humans with higher sensitivies and susceptibilities to these chemicals such as babies, children, pregnant moffiees, older persons, or persons with impaired immune systems or any type of physical disability. There have been no tests conducted over longer periods of time such as a year, several years, or twenty. The long-term effects of these chemicals are entirely unknown! The restilts of something toxic now may not show up until fifreen or twenty years down the line, when it is too late to do anything about it, or even to figure out which chemical or combination of chemicals caused the problem. If you arc old enough to remember when they were using DDT, you can see how dangerous it is to believe what experts currently say about these supposedly "safe" agricultural chemicals. DDT was considered safe when they were using it. It's not safe and neither are these chemicals. 2. Based on the currently accepted practice of burning of fields during preparation for planting, and the burning of huge tonnages of "slash" during the harvesting operations, there is a wide exposure of the public to breathing both particulates and toxic chemicals released during the burn. (The chemicals sprayed on the ground and the trees have to go somewhere- they either end up in the soil, the ground water, or released into the air as a result of a burn). Although the eucalyptus monoculture plantation operations claim that the agricultural chemicals they use do not drift, they do (see #1 above). They cannot claim the same about the drifr of particulates and toxic chemicals bound up in the particulates generated by a burn. These toxics can easily drifr for miles. This is during a controlled burn (which has minimum drifr) during a field preparation or burning of slash during harvesting. What kind of toxic chemical and particulate release occurs during a widespread forest fire on these heavily poisoned plantations? There could be massive amounts of toxins released for incredible distances. In the State of Oregon, during forest fire season, communities 50 to 100 miles away from forest fire locations are routinely impacted by the smoke they generate. 3. There are many additional types of toxins and environmental pollutants released by the various kinds of "value-added" processing that is normally done with the harvest from a eucalyptus monoculture plantation. Pulp mills release huge amounts of hydrogen sulfide (acid rain), and dioxins (organochlorine compounds). Medium density fiberboard (MDF) mills release formaldehyde and other toxic compounds during operation. Even plywood mills if not designed and operated properly can generate quite a brew of toxins. Some of the toxins released by these mills make the toxins that were sprayed on the plantation earlier look relatively safe. 4. These eucalyptus monoculture plantation operations are heavily mechanized and create relatively few jobs compared to the acreage they occupy (and destroy). Pulp and MDF mills are also heavily mechanized, and the same holds true for them. As an example, Hamalcua Sugar employed 1,000 people on their 24,000 acres at the height of their operation. Hamakua Timber is currently employing 4 on the same acreage, with approximately 25 additional persons employed in the field by the contractors they have contracted to do the field preparation and planting. The planting only takes 2-3 years, then there will be minimum employment until harvesting. Harvesting is typically done with large machines that cut and stack the trees, minimizing jobs and human participation.